Is there room in the Catholic Church for those who don’t believe Islam is a religion of peace?

Last Wednesday, I had a lively discussion with Msgr. Stuart Swetland, president of Donnelly College in Kansas City, Kansas, on Relevant Radio’s Drew Mariani Show, on whether or not Islam was a religion of violence. Msgr. Swetland argued not only that Islam was a religion of peace, but that to believe otherwise was to place oneself in opposition to the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Msgr. Swetland has now helpfully supplied me with the remarks below, clarifying his position and supporting it with statements of various Popes and the Second Vatican Council. Msgr. Swetland contends that statements of recent Popes to the effect that Islam is a religion of peace fall into the category of teachings to which Catholics must give “religious assent,” as per the quotation below from the Second Vatican Council document Lumen Gentium.

If Msgr. Swetland is correct, then I am, as he puts it, “a dissenter from the papal magisterium.” So also, then, would be millions of other Catholics, including Catholics from the Middle East who have borne the brunt of Muslim persecution of Christians and know what Islam teaches, such as the gentleman from Lebanon who phoned in to the Mariani Show during my discussion with Msgr. Swetland. If Msgr. Swetland is correct, then Catholics must affirm that Islam is a religion of peace as part and parcel of being Catholic, and the Catholic Church will be requiring that its faithful affirm the truth of what is an obvious and egregious falsehood, as I demonstrated here and in many other places.

If Msgr. Swetland is correct, and it is Church teaching that all Catholics must accept that Islam is a religion of peace, then the Catholic hierarchy will have demonstrated that it does not have the authority or reliability in discerning and transmitting the truth that it claims to have; Papal claims to speak in the name of Christ will be eviscerated; and the Catholic Church as a whole exposed as a fraud.

Thus the stakes are extremely high in this question. Msgr. Swetland ably makes his case below. This is why I do not think he is correct, and do not believe that Catholics are bound to affirm that Islam is a religion of peace:

Msgr. Swetland says below: “At least in the area of morals, Robert seems to be a dissenter from the papal magisterium.” The cornerstone of his entire case is this statement from Lumen Gentium: “In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent.” Msgr. Swetland seems to think that affirming that Islam is a religion of peace is a matter of morals, as that is what the bulk of his quotations below are about. (He also claims I’m a dissenter because I don’t accept Pope Francis’ position on Muslim migrants, and that is arguably a question of morals, but I have bishops on my side on that issue, and most of Msgr. Swetland’s quotations below don’t deal with it, so that is a discussion for another time.) But is the affirmation that Islam is a religion of peace really a matter of Catholic faith or morals? I don’t see how: it’s a statement about the teachings of a different religion altogether. Is the content of the Buddhist or Hindu faith also a matter of Catholic morals? My contention is that the statements about Islam by the Second Vatican Council and recent Popes are not matters of faith or morals, and so do not fall within the realm of those matters upon which Catholics must assent to the statements of Popes and bishops.

If “this religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra,” and “must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will,” the question then becomes, which Roman Pontiff? Pope Francis, who declared that “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence,” or Pope Callixtus III, who in 1455 vowed to “exalt the true Faith, and to extirpate the diabolical sect of the reprobate and faithless Mahomet in the East”? Are Catholics to believe that Islam is a “diabolical sect” because Pope Callixtus III said it was, and simultaneously believe that it is “opposed to every form of violence” because Pope Francis said so? Or must Catholics go with Francis and reject Callixtus as a “dissenter from the papal magisterium” because he believed Islam to be diabolical? What authority does Francis have that Callixtus did not have? Or does Francis trump Callixtus solely by virtue of being of the present day and not forgotten? The Church fought Crusades against Muslims for several hundred years. Are all the Popes who called for and approved of those expeditions to be accorded “submission of mind and will,” or do only John Paul II, Benedict XVI (who may not really have held the point of view that Msgr. Swetland ascribes to him) and Francis get that?

Msgr. Swetland’s claim that Catholics must as a matter of obedience affirm that Islam is a religion of peace would require the Church to repudiate much of its history. Will Santiago Matamoros be repudiated and no longer regarded as a saint? Will the Dantescan fresco of Muhammad in hell in the Basilica of San Petronio in Bologna be whitewashed? Will the Church call on Catholics not to celebrate the victories at Tours in 732, Lepanto in 1571 and Vienna in 1683, and others over Islamic jihadis, and express regret for them? Will Hilaire Belloc’s writings on Islam as “the most formidable and persistent enemy” of the Church be officially repudiated by the hierarchy? From the beginning of Islam, Muslims have warred against Christians and the Church, as numerous saints and martyrs attest. Were all of them out of step with the Church’s teaching? No, the Church’s teaching on Islam was vastly different then from what it is now. Will all of these saints and martyrs be repudiated as well?

There are other problems with Msgr. Swetland’s statement. He quotes a statement of the U.S. bishops and the American Muslim Council to show that “mainstream Muslims reject terrorism and violence.” The fact that numerous Muslim groups condemn jihad terror attacks is not really at issue, and just raises the further question of why there are no programs in any U.S. mosque to teach young Muslims why they should reject the understanding of Islam taught by al-Qaeda, the Islamic State (ISIS) and other jihad groups. But aside from that, I wonder if Msgr. Swetland is aware that Abdurrahman Alamoudi, the founder of the American Muslim Council, is now in prison for financing al-Qaeda. How could it be that the founder of a group that shows how “mainstream Muslims reject terrorism and violence” ended up financing al-Qaeda? Might the sanction that the Qur’an gives to religious deception shed any light on that question? This is not to say that there are no Muslims who are sincere in rejecting jihad terror, but Msgr. Swetland’s choice of an example to illustrate that was unfortunate in the extreme.

Msgr. Swetland adds to his statement an article in which Bishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo says: “It would be naive to pretend that there are not certain episodes in the Koran and the Hadith that may lend themselves to a violent interpretation…how the Muslim community worldwide can give a peaceful hermeneutic to these passages is a task which I imagine will be made more difficult with too much pressure ‘from outside’…I wouldn’t dream of telling Muslims how to interpret their faith. But those who want to work towards that end from within will find a strong ally and friend in the Catholic Church, ready to accompany on the way.” Great. But Bishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo has thus tacitly admitted that “a peaceful hermeneutic” of the Qur’an’s violent passages does not now exist, and that the task of formulating it will be “difficult.” Islam is 1,400 years old. Why doesn’t this “peaceful hermeneutic” already exist? Why is it yet to be developed? Isn’t its non-existence telling?

Msgr. Swetland also has some highly insulting and defamatory things to say about me personally. One is that I’m an ISIS recruiter: he claims that “Spencer’s interpretation also allows these radical groups to say to potential recruits, mostly disaffected young persons who are susceptible to radicalization, ‘See, even our most vocal opponents agree with us that our interpretation of Islam is the correct one.'” The idea that jihadis invoke non-Muslims in recruiting is absurd, albeit held not just by Msgr. Swetland but by Barack Obama, John Kerry and a host of others. In reality, Muslims do not look to non-Muslims for validation of what is Islam and what isn’t, any more than Christians look to non-Christians to tell them what Christianity is and isn’t. If Msgr. Swetland knew anything about Islam, he would know that “the best of people,” which is what the Qur’an calls Muslims (3:110), do not look to “the most vile of created beings” (98:6) to explain Islam to them.

Msgr. Swetland also says below that I have failed to “avoid hateful generalizations.” This is a false charge, and I challenge him to produce even one example of a “hateful generalization” in any of my fifteen books, hundreds of articles, and 40,000+ website posts about Islam. He can also consult hundreds of YouTube videos of me speaking in all sorts of contexts. There is so much material, he shouldn’t have any difficulty finding one. When he fails to find one, however, as he will certainly do, I respectfully request that he retract that charge.

The Church hierarchy, and perhaps Pope Francis himself, needs to clarify whether there is still any place in the Catholic Church for those who do not believe that Islam is a religion of peace. Since it is a readily demonstrable fact that it isn’t, if affirming Islam as peaceful is now required of Catholics, then I will follow in the footsteps of another notorious Catholic detested by the hierarchy, the monk who said, “Here I stand. I can do no other.”

But those in the Catholic Church who agree with Msgr. Swetland may find my departure from the fold, however devoutly they may desire it, to be a pyrrhic victory, for they will in that event have bound themselves to a falsehood so great as to destroy utterly all their claims to speak with moral authority in the name of Christ.

“Catholic Popes on Islam,” by Msgr. Stuart Swetland, August 13, 2016:

Catholics believe that our bishops, the successors of the Apostles, especially the Bishop of Rome, the successor of St. Peter, teach with a greater than human authority in matters of faith and morals. Thus we owe to their teaching a “religious submission of mind and will.” Here is how the Second Vatican Council taught it:

Lumen Gentium 25: “In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.”

In Latin, “religious submission” is obsequium religiosum and Canon 752 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law for Latin rite Catholics states: “Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.” In the 1990 Code of Canons of the Oriental Churches, Canon 599 demands a similar response: “A religious obsequium of intellect and will, even if not the assent of faith, is to be paid to the teaching on faith or morals which the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishops enunciate when they exercise the authentic magisterium even if they do not intend to proclaim it with a definitive act; therefore the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid whatever is not in harmony with that teaching.”

My main purpose in having a discussion with Robert Spencer, a Catholic, on a Catholic radio network was to show clearly that his positions on Islam were at odds with Catholic teaching. For just a small sampling of magisterial teachings on Islam since VII:

Second Vatican Council, Nostra Aetate 3: “The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions. She has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct, the precepts and doctrines which, although differing in many ways from her own teaching, nevertheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men. Yet she proclaims and is in duty bound to proclaim without fail, Christ who is ‘the way, the truth and the life’ (Jn 1:6). In him, in whom God reconciled all things to himself (cf. 2Co 5:18-19), men find the fullness of their religious life. The Church, therefore, urges her sons to enter with prudence and charity into discussion and collaboration with members of other religions. Let Christians, while witnessing to their own faith and way of life, acknowledge, preserve and encourage the spiritual and moral truths found among non-Christians, also their social life and culture. The Church has also a high regard for the Muslims. They worship God, who is one, living and subsistent, merciful and almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth (Cf. St. Gregory VII, Letter III, 21 to Anazir [Al-Nasir], King of Mauretania PL, 148.451A.), who has spoken to men. They strive to submit themselves without reserve to the hidden decrees of God, just as Abraham submitted himself to God’s plan, to whose faith Muslims eagerly link their own. Although not acknowledging him as God, they venerate Jesus as a prophet, his Virgin Mother they also honor, and even at times devoutly invoke. Further, they await the day of judgment and the reward of God following the resurrection of the dead. For this reason they highly esteem an upright life and worship God, especially by way of prayer, alms-deeds and fasting. Over the centuries many quarrels and dissensions have arisen between Christians and Muslims. The sacred Council now pleads with all to forget the past, and urges that a sincere effort be made to achieve mutual understanding; for the benefit of all men, let them together preserve and promote peace, liberty, social justice and moral values.”

Paul VI, Ecclesiam Suam 107, August 6, 1964: “Then [we refer] to the adorers of God according to the conception of monotheism, the Muslim religion especially, deserving of our admiration for all that is true and good in their worship of God.”

John Paul II, Address on Culture, Art and Science, Astana, Kazakhstan, September 24, 2001: “In this context, and precisely here in the land of encounter and dialogue, and before this distinguished audience, I wish to reaffirm the Catholic Church’s respect for Islam, for authentic Islam: the Islam that prays, that is concerned for those in need. Recalling the errors of the past, including the most recent past, all believers ought to unite their efforts to ensure that God is never made the hostage of human ambitions. Hatred, fanaticism and terrorism profane the name of God and disfigure the true image of man.”

Benedict XVI, Apostolic Exhortation, Ecclesia in Medio Oriente, September 14, 2012 (excerpt): “19. The Church’s universal nature and vocation require that she engage in dialogue with the members of other religions. In the Middle East this dialogue is based on the spiritual and historical bonds uniting Christians to Jews and Muslims. It is a dialogue which is not primarily dictated by pragmatic political or social considerations, but by underlying theological concerns which have to do with faith. They are grounded in the sacred Scriptures and are clearly defined in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium. . . and in the Declaration on the Church’s Relation to Non-Christian Religions Nostra Aetate. . . . . . Jews, Christians and Muslims alike believe in one God, the Creator of all men and women. May Jews, Christians and Muslims rediscover one of God’s desires, that of the unity and harmony of the human family. May Jews, Christians and Muslims find in other believers brothers and sisters to be respected and loved, and in this way, beginning in their own lands, give the beautiful witness of serenity and concord between the children of Abraham. Rather than being exploited in endless conflicts which are unjustifiable for authentic believers, the acknowledgment of one God – if lived with a pure heart – can make a powerful contribution to peace in the region and to respectful coexistence on the part of its peoples….23. The Catholic Church, in fidelity to the teachings of the Second Vatican Council. . . , looks with esteem to Muslims, who worship God above all by prayer, almsgiving and fasting, revere Jesus as a prophet while not acknowledging his divinity, and honor Mary, his Virgin Mother. We know that the encounter of Islam and Christianity has often taken the form of doctrinal controversy. Sadly, both sides have used doctrinal differences as a pretext for justifying, in the name of religion, acts of intolerance, discrimination, marginalization and even of persecution…. 24. Despite this fact, Christians live daily alongside Muslims in the Middle East, where their presence is neither recent nor accidental, but has a long history. As an integral part of the Middle East, Christians have developed over the centuries a type of relationship with their surroundings which can prove instructive. They have let themselves be challenged by Muslim devotion and piety, and have continued, in accordance with their means and to the extent possible, to live by and to promote the values of the Gospel in the surrounding culture. The result has been a particular form of symbiosis. It is proper, then, to acknowledge the contribution made by Jews, Christians and Muslims in the formation of a rich culture proper to the Middle East…”

Pope Francis, The Joy of the Gospel: “253. We Christians should embrace with affection and respect Muslim immigrants to our countries in the same way that we hope and ask to be received and respected in countries of Islamic tradition. I ask and I humbly entreat those countries to grant Christians freedom to worship and to practice their faith, in light of the freedom which followers of Islam enjoy in Western countries! Faced with disconcerting episodes of violent fundamentalism, our respect for true followers of Islam should lead us to avoid hateful generalizations, for authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.”

Robert Spencer’s positions seem to be at odds with the magisterial teachings on what authentic Islam is and what Catholic are called to do about it (accept immigrants, avoid hateful generalizations, show esteem and respect, etc.) At least in the area of morals, Robert seems to be a dissenter from the papal magisterium.

After the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, there was a Joint Statement by Archbishop (later Cardinal) Keeler, then President of the US National Conference of Bishops and Dr. Mahmoud Abu-Saud, then President of the American Muslim Council:

“As the Presidents of two organizations that have been codirecting a national dialogue between Catholics and Muslims for two years, we declare our agreement on general principles to guide discussions of such incidents as the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York. Together we urge all not to impugn whole peoples or their religions because of the despicable acts of some. Aggression and terrorism wherever they occur are to be condemned since they constitute an illegitimate use of force and therefore violate the law of God. This we affirm without qualification. With equally strong resolve we reject any effort to claim a religious inspiration or sanction for such contemptible acts. This misguided contention disfigures religion itself. It is important at this time for us to reaffirm our commitment to one another. A major goal of Christian Muslim dialogue is to eradicate misrepresentations of Islam, and the history of Christian Muslim relations. Another goal is to cooperate in pursuit of common values, in particular, justice, peace, and respect for creation. We are encouraged by the fact that dialogue between Catholics and Muslims is already taking place in several American cities. As the Presidents of the American Muslim Council and of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops we call upon our faithful to come together to dialogue, to pray, and to act in behalf of our common values.”

I use this as just one example of thousands that show that mainstream Muslims reject terrorism and violence. Authentic Christians and Muslims reject terrorism and violence and to teach differently is harmful to the common good. It especially hurts our efforts in counter-intelligence and cooperation from many Islamic people and nations who work with us to counter the false, nihilistic ideology and terroristic actions of ISIS, ISIL, Al Qaeda, etc. in fact, Spencer’s interpretation also allows these radical groups to say to potential recruits, mostly disaffected young persons who are susceptible to radicalization, “See, even our most vocal opponents agree with us that our interpretation of Islam is the correct one.”

On August 12th, after our discussion, a news report of a speech given by Bishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, president of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences written by Hannah Brockhaus entitled “Muslims Who Interpret Quran Peacefully ‘Find a Strong Ally’ in the Church” was published by the Catholic News Agency. Bishop Sanchez’s reflections on Islam are very similar to what I was trying to communicate in my discussions with Robert Spencer. Here is the news report:

A Vatican bishop spoke out last week stressing that while few Muslims are terrorists, there are passages in the Quran advocating violence that can’t be ignored, and must be clarified from within the Muslim community.

“It would be naive to pretend that there are not certain episodes in the Koran and the Hadith that may lend themselves to a violent interpretation,” Bishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, president of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, said Aug. 5.

He added that “how the Muslim community worldwide can give a peaceful hermeneutic to these passages is a task which I imagine will be made more difficult with too much pressure ‘from outside,’” and that thus “I wouldn’t dream of telling Muslims how to interpret their faith.”

“But those who want to work towards that end from within will find a strong ally and friend in the Catholic Church, ready to accompany on the way.”

Bishop Sánchez delivered this reflection during a “Meditation for Peace” hosted by The Art of Living, an India-based Hindu organization.

His speech came just days after Pope Francis on his July 31 return flight from Krakow voiced his belief that it is not right to identify Islam with violence. “This is not right and it is not true,” he said.

In his speech Bishop Sánchez agreed with the Pope, but noted how the “religious-inspired terrorism” of the last few decades has been “propagated by a few individuals who insist that they alone have the correct interpretation of Islam.”

These individuals persist “in the face of the billion other adherents of Islam who testify to a tolerant religion which does not recognize the legitimacy of the actions of these few wicked individuals,” he said.

Bishop Sánchez acknowledged that most Muslims are not guilty of the violence perpetrated “in the name of their religion,” and that Muslims themselves were killed in the July 15 act of terrorism in Nice, when a truck plowed through crowds celebrating Bastille Day, killing 84 people and wounding roughly 50 others.

He also noted how an “overwhelming majority” of the victims of terrorist groups in the Middle East such as the Islamic State are Muslim.

“It therefore falls upon all leaders of moral authority in these times to do all they can to calm an increasingly tense situation – made all the more tense by the actions of the few,” he said.

The bishop quoted a prayer Pope Francis offered July 30 at World Youth Day in Krakow for the conversion of terrorists to the “way of peace and goodness, of respect for the life and dignity of every human being.”

“I think this is also the sincere hope of everybody – of whichever faith tradition,” he said.

In light of continued terrorism around the world, “every single person, irrespective of personal faith, has the responsibility to speak – and to act – with the utmost prudence … Only ever appealing to our neighbor’s most noble sentiments and never to his worst instincts,” Bishop Sánchez said.

He concluded his speech by emphasizing that “what I want to say – and this is my central message for the Meditation for Peace today – is that perhaps it is the case that this generation has been entrusted with the last opportunity of preserving peace throughout our societies…across the European Union and the wider world.”

It is very important for all believers that the authentic teaching of the Church be clear so that we may know the truth and attempt to live it to the full. I submit that there is a serious difference between the repeated magisterial teachings of the Church and the teaching of Robert Spencer in this area. For the sake of all, this situation needs to be clarified.

Comments

I left the chruch in my twenties. Hasn’t ever meant much to me and I thought the Pope an his rotten Curch is full of hypocrites. Made my peace with the followers of the Pope in the decade to come and now again I’n on square one. What a despicable organisation. As much as I loath Islam, I loath the appeasers even more.

how do justify that standing up to the catholic church’s muslim appeasement makes you a “hillary troll”. Mr. Spencer stands up against the appeasement of the catholic church, is he also a hill troll??? i left the church years ago as well, disgusted by their acceptance of tax payer dollars in exchange for providing muslim “refugee” resettlement. I actively support Mr. Trump, and know that he is the one person who will stop the unvetted muslims from entering the U.S., making him also an enemy of the “church”, as the dope pope has lectured him on several occasions.

(..I thought the Pope an his rotten Curch is full of hypocrites. Made my peace with the followers of the Pope in the decade to come and now again I’n on square one. What a despicable organisation. As much as I loath Islam, I loath the appeasers even more..)

I am not a Catholic so I never believed that Popes have any more moral authority than the next man. In fact, I am an Atheist so believe none of it.

However, I seem to recall that not long before his “Retirement” Pope Benedict the something or other spoke out against Islam in a not flattering way. I have always thought that action brought about his “Retirement” which is better than what the Catholic Church used to do to unwanted Popes: Hit them on the head with a silver hammer and ask if they were alive after the blow. If so, I think another blow was forthcoming.

When the Pope prior to Benedict, the fat one named John something or other was on his deathbed, the Vatican issued a photograph it claimed to be of him, hearty and well and watching TV. The photo was taken from behind and it was a fat man, bald with a fringe of white hair all artfully arranged. If that really was the Pope, then I’m the Queen of England.

I do not care what the Pope or his minions say. Islam is not peaceful and it’s goal is to conquer the rest of the world and create a Grand Caliphate with force. They are despicable people living in another age where brute force reigns.

You are speaking of the late Pope John Paul II. Don’t know what your source is for that “photo”, but the general public, especially Catholics were well aware of his failing health-we knew he suffered from Parkinson’s, and hello- he was photographed and televised so much, you could see him aging. When he was on his deathbed, the public knew it. Don’t know where you were.

I consider it ironic that Catholics are being told that rejecting a heretical teaching about the nature of Islam (that it is peaceful) means they are not true Catholics. It is especially rich coming from the pseudo-church that has emerged from the fruits of modernism — Vatican II. Modernism is considered the heresy of heresies as it is the synthesis of all heresies (see the writings of Pope Pius X). These modernist priests and prelates who rejected signing the Oath against Modernism drafted and ordered to be signed by Pope Pius X, now demand that we Catholics obey their false teachings on Islam. These false teachings contradict the truthful teachings on Islam of the Catholic Popes pre-dating Vatican II. Pope Benedict XVI also understood the true nature of Islam; that it is a violent and dangerous ideology and a false religion that takes its adherents away from the one true God to a violent deceiver masquerading as God.

By adhering to modernism and respecting false religions as part of Catholic teaching, these so-called Catholic leaders have lost all credibility and preach a Gospel other than that preached by St. Paul and the Apostles.

How moral is it to accept grave evil as moral? These false teachers and wolves masquerading as sheep or shepherds do not even know history or the contents of the foundational texts of the religion of submission.

This bizarre development in the Church leadership’s position regarding Islam reinforces my view that we are in the end times and that Jesus’ return is imminent.

I believe this is a sign of the end times too. And I also think that this Stand taken by this Monsignor is the most sad thing I have heard while learning about Islam and all the terrorist attacks that I know about. Hearing that the foundation of Christianity has been pulled out, surely the building will crumble. Where will Catholics like Robert be then? Whether other Christian churches who are not Catholic realise it, it is this Rock that Jesus built his Church.

The Rock is Y’shua Himself, not someone/something that happened in the New Testament. He/it was mentioned many times in the “Old” Testament so if anything the Old Testament is the Foundation Stone. Y’shua said He was the root & offspring of David! not Peter or the church! If 1 cuts themselves off from the “Old” Testament, (the stump of Jessie from which the branch grew) it might be easier to mistake Islam as being from our G-d!, as parallel religions worthy of our respect & not the devils final, last temptation!

Actually, Jesus was never in Rome so he could not build his church there. I believe he said to Peter that he was his rock upon whom he would build his church. Rome was not, to the best of my knowledge, mentioned.

I agree with BC on his remark. Indeed, how many times has someone predicted the “End of times” and the date came and went with out incident from heaven or angels or hellfire or any of that. Keeping one’s feet on the ground is to be recommended.

From time to time throughout the life of the earth, catastrophies have wiped out most living things, in one case 75% of species. It will happen again when a comet comes again hurdling into the earth, one hopes thousands of years in the future, but it will have nothing to do with a god or a bible or a koran or any of that stuff. It will have only to do with the nature of the universe.

Good post. I agree. Based on the allah god’s supposed revelations in the Quran stating that Jesus never said He is the Son of God and the allah god’s statement that Jesus did not die on the cross lead me to one conclusion on the Islamic allah god based on Jesus’ words in John 8:44…”Satan is the father of all lies”. I logically conclude the Islamic allah god is Satan. The only question i have at this point is this: Is Pope Francis just ignorant or is he aligned with Satan?”

As a Catholic I support Pope Frances he has knowledge of what is happening in the world.
Let’s put a few facts on the table and figure who the enemy is?
When Russia was involved in Afghanistan, the USA government through Pakistan approached, the mujahidin and ended up buying thousands of Chinese made AK47s, supplied explosives, stinger missiles and other forms military ordinance including land mines. One of the recipients was Osama Ben Laden.
Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, happen to be involved plus a list of NGOs who are paid by the USA to engineer news narratives of atrocities by the Russians.
To cut a long storey the 9/11 culprits: were those that the Americans supplied money, and arms to. That the NGOs called heroes, the ones Americans citizens admired and supported through belief: in the narrative supplied by the MSM.
Subsequently American involvement in Afghanistan: the young American troops who stepped on a land mine, was a mine bought and paid for by their mothers and fathers tax money. The same goes for the bullets and weapons used to shoot them’
The troops of the coalition who perished happened as a result of their own government, culpability, in supporting evil causes.
Look at Syria, the same narrative is at work. The White Helmets is a terrorist organization embedded with terrorists, assisting terrorists paid by the governments of the USA, UK, and various European nations, Jorge Soros a embittered anti-catholic has his NGOs elected the White Helmets as a contender for the Nobel peace prize. What a laugh at the gullible.
Who are killing Christians in Syria and Iraq well it is not Assad or the Russians.

According to various reports based on Muslim Brotherhood documents and history, the Muslim Brotherhood has been infiltrating the United States since the early 1930s in the realms of government, academia and media. One of their stated goals from their inception is to destroy or defeat the western democracies (“Christendom”) from within. Part of this strategy was to involve the US in various wars or incursions into the middle east in order to reinvigorate muslims worldwide to fight to re-establish the caliphate vanquished by the Brits and the west in WWI (ie to re-establish the Ottoman Empire or a successor caliphate).

With respect to Pope Francis; why did the Gallen Mafia (famous modernist Cardinals from Germany and elsewhere) boast about attacking and thwarting the work of Pope Benedict XVI and their successful strategy to crown Francis as the new pope?

Consider — why is Pope Francis sowing confusion among the world’s faithful — can this be the fruit of the Holy Spirit? Consider why is Pope Francis barely mentioning the GENOCIDE of Catholics and Orthodox Christians and others by ISIS and other Muslim Brotherhood member-groups in Syria, Iraq, Sudan, Nigeria and other hot-spots the world over. He is to be the leader and protector and shepherd of his flock; he is to lay down his life for his sheep as Christ did. He symbolically refused to wear the traditional red shoes of the Pope which symbolize the martyrdom of the Apostles and the first Popes. The shoes signify the commitment and love for the bride of Christ – the Church and its people – a love unto death. He appears more concerned about environmental issues than his sheep.

“Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me.” Fellow Christians are brothers and sisters. Why do so few Catholic and other Christian leaders care?

One of the reasons I am an Atheist is that I am not a sheep to be led by some old man, in this case from the streets of Argentina. He is not my shepherd. I am not his sheep. It’s like that silly song, “That saved a wretch like me.” I am not a wretch, never was a wretch, and hope never to be one.

Lion of Judah Cub. You have the most reasoned response of any of these. You are correct but it goes farther. There seems a darker side to Francis and his lock stock capitulation. Is he the false prophet? Is Obama the antichrist? Yes la-la land designations await folks that mouth such but how can a sensible person reach any other conclusion, seeing the deeply entrenched Islamic cancer permeating into the very fabrics of our system, to the point that extrication is now nearly impossible. Both Obama and Francis are false and thereby quality for the aforementioned monikers.

Dear Carolyne, you are an Athesist so I assume you don’t believe in intelligent design from an uncreated first cause call God by Jews and Christuans. therefore your first cause had to come from some unintelligent uncreated first cause. So please explain for us what is your idea of a first cause and what is the mathematical probability that your unintelligent first cause can mutate from some Big Bang into a human being. If you can then you will be the first.

“So please explain for us what is your idea of a first cause and what is the mathematical probability that your unintelligent first cause can mutate from some Big Bang into a human being.”

The probability of creating a human being by any single random process is exactly zero. Fortunately, evolution does not have a “first cause”. Evolution proceeds by a series of very small steps – with millions of failures and then one or two “successes” to generate a structure of increased complexity. Then the more complex structure will mover forward and it may or may not replace the simpler structure that preceded it. Getting life (replication structures) going took over a billion years.

You can see evolution taking place today in bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Out of millions of bacteria only a few developed the ability to resist antibiotics. Then, in the presence of the antibiotics, the resistant bacteria survived while their non-resistant buddies died. Now, most of our antibiotics are useless – because the bacteria have evolved to resist them.

I too considered the Amazing Grace lyrics unusual and I did not consider myself or many other people I know “wretches”. Once I learned the story behind the song, the wording made sense. The writer was a slave ship owner responsible for the horrific treatment, abuse and/or murder of thousands of African captives. During a terrible storm he prayed to God, who answered his prayer and saved him and his ship. He then converted to Christianity and left his evil enterprise.

In another regard, though, we are all sinners in different ways and need God our Creator to help us to reunite with Him and the rest of humanity in the way He had envisioned for us from the beginning of time.

The first cause I’m talking about is the uncreated non contingent necessity that has created all time and space and is called God by Christians. I agree with your description of evolution but that God created these material contingents that can evolve but random mutations of a single cell into a 200 cell being is nearly mathematically impossible on its own. So for a multi million cell being like us has to come from an uncreated intelligent and loving creator that is activity keeping this universe spinning by His will

“but random mutations of a single cell into a 200 cell being is nearly mathematically impossible on its own” True. and I would say absolutely impossible. But what you describe is a very big step and evolution does not proceed that way. Evolution proceeds by very small steps over a very long time.

According to the most-widely accepted theory of evolution today, the sole mechanism for producing evolution is that of random mutation combined with natural selection. Mutations are random changes in genetic systems. Natural selection is considered by evolutionists to be a sort of sieve, which retains the “good” mutations and allows the others to pass away.

Since random changes in ordered systems almost always will decrease the amount of order in those systems, nearly all mutations are harmful to the organisms which experience them. Nevertheless, the evolutionist insists that each complex organism in the world today has arisen by a long string of gradually accumulated good mutations preserved by natural selection. No one has ever actually observed a genuine mutation occurring in the natural environment which was beneficial (that is, adding useful genetic information to an existing genetic code), and therefore, retained by the selection process. For some reason, however, the idea has a certain persuasive quality about it and seems eminently reasonable to many people—until it is examined quantitatively, that is!

I am always curious about someone who says they left the Catholic Church. Did you leave because there are sinners in the Church and you are a saint or because you reject God’s Word and His claim that His Church will prevail against the gates of Hell? Please tell

RegT, I suppose you didn’t read the last line asking for an response which I assumed would provoke an intelligent response. All you see from Catholic bashers on this site and many others for rejecting or leaving the Catholic Church are because they don’t like this or that person or some just don’t accept the teaching and Word of God through His Church. The Word of God that has been handed down to the Catholic Church has been around for four thousand years and has probably been the most scrutinized and persecuted religion and Church from its very founding yet the Word of God and His Church still stands today and the dogma of the Church has not changed for thousands of years. Have you throughly studied the claims of the Church and the theological defenses of the Church? I suppose a third reason some might leave the Church would be because of ignorance and they have no clue about about the Word of God as spoken and taught by the Catholic Church. But this too is a form of rejecting God’s Word. On point to the debate between Mr Spencer and Monsignor, they both want the Muslims and the world to understand the truth about Islam. By knowing the truth about Islam people can then make a more informed decision to stay with or leave Islam and our political leaders will better understand why the terrorists will die and murder in the name of and true teaching of Islam. Both Monsignor and Mr Spencer share a similar goal which is for people to know the truth about Islam. The truth will hopefully lead some Muslims to leave Islam and hopefully some will try to reform Islam. Monsignor wants Muslims to see that the faith started by Abraham has been handed down to the Catholc Church and not Islam. Mr Spencer wants muslims and especially political leaders to know the truth about Islam’s teaching about muhammed and why true Islam is teaching deadly jihad. If a Muslim leaves Islam or Islam is reformed it be because of truth not because of what this or that person did or didn’t do.

I’m curious did you leave the Catholic Church because there are sinners in the Church and you are a saint or because you reject God’s Word and his claim that the gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church?
Please tell

I don’t see anyone being against the Catholics. I see people being against the Catholic Church as it is today with this current Pope at the head of it.
Yes, there is some negative about the church before this Pope but we have to be able to accept criticism and consider it carefully or we will be exactly like the Muslims, vengeful when someone dares to criticise their institution.

One of the most important points anyone in any religion must remember is this: Each one, individually, on his or her own, renders an account with God. No one can render an account for anyone else and stating that *so-and-so* told me this or that will not work with God.

Jesus said “each one must carry his own load” though we can assist with “burdens.”
This means that each one answers for the faith or lack thereof, the actions and the words of their life,…”load”
but if they become ill, in poverty, etc., then others may help with these “burdens.”

Never been Catholic, never will be. But this guy is uttering falsehoods about islam, why should he be believed when it comes to what is Biblical?

Christians don’t need “to be there”. They believe that the New Testament is a historical document that was inspired by God and is therefore true. So if you ask the questions: How do you know that? and Were you there? then you are just coming across as a dummy.

Even if God exists and inspired the scriptures, this doesn’t mean the New Testament is error free. The writers of scripture were sinners and therefore the scriptures are a human construct. Mother Teresa says she was inspired by God, but hat doesn’t mean that she never made mistakes.

Eddie – what is it with “error free scripts”. That is an obessions of muslims and a problem of muslims and protestants. The latter (sola scripta) effectevily replacing god given intelligence with “a script”.

Thinking the so called New Testament or the old Testament is a historical document is the epitome of being a dummy. Does it not strike you as weird that a vengeful and punishing ‘god’ AKA father figure, suddenly turns into a loving and kind one according to Christian church teaching. putting it in complete opposition to the New Testament images. Very many scholars have studied the whole bible in depth and they almost universally agree that it is not in any way an historical work.
Even the four gospels themselves do not give the same accounts and disagree in many key points. Why? Because they were written may years after the ‘events’ they describe

I need to correct my error I wrote New when it should have been Old. Thinking the so called New Testament or the old Testament is a historical document is the epitome of being a dummy. Does it not strike you as weird that a vengeful and punishing ‘god’ AKA father figure, suddenly turns into a loving and kind one according to Christian church teaching. putting it in complete opposition to the 0ld Testament images. Very many scholars have studied the whole bible in depth and they almost universally agree that it is not in any way an historical work.
Even the four gospels themselves do not give the same accounts and disagree in many key points. Why? Because they were written may years after the ‘events’ they describe

“Does it not strike you as weird that a vengeful and punishing ‘god’ AKA father figure, suddenly turns into a loving and kind one according to Christian church teaching. putting it in complete opposition to the New Testament images. Very many scholars have studied the whole bible in depth and they almost universally agree that it is not in any way an historical work.”

……………..,……..

A vengeful God, really? The Bible not historical? That is laughable. If you look up Vengeful it means to seek revenge. The God of Abraham and Moses sought to teach man to know Him and love him. There is no revenge in discipline. In the Old Testament God did have the death penalty for those who were killing His people’s souls by spreading lies and error or for worshiping other gods like the golden cafe when He said not to do that. Just as a parent has to discipline their children if they want a good adult so did God discipline His children. Then when His children were ready He revealed Himself in the most humble and intimate way He could by becoming man. Atheists like to whine that since God allows evil and suffering then there can’t be a God. But God became man and was brutally beaten, humiliated and then in a most inhumane way suffered a brutal death on the cross. The Christian God is a loving God and is always reaching out to man with love from the beginning. It’s man who is defiant, unloving and ungrateful to their loving father who gave them their life and is trying to connect with low faith people. But low faith people continue to make ridiculous and lazy statements that God is vengeful and the Bible is not historical. To sad for you low faith people.

You say
“Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but leave room for God’s wrath. For it is written: “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”

Regarding Romans 12 this a section of mutual love and the ultimate judgment and Justice that is reserved for God on Judgment Day. This also explains where the Pope and Church come from when assisting Muslim refugees.

17
Do not repay anyone evil for evil; be concerned for what is noble in the sight of all.
18
If possible, on your part, live at peace with all.p
19
Beloved, do not look for revenge but leave room for the wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”q
20
Rather, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head.”r
21
Do not be conquered by evil but conquer evil with good.

Since God has justified the believers, it is not necessary for them to take justice into their own hands by taking vengeance. God will ultimately deal justly with all, including those who inflict injury on the believers. This question of personal rights as a matter of justice prepares the way for more detailed consideration of the state as adjudicator.

To say God is just vengeful without the context of Justice which BC tries to do Is not justifiable and he paints God as evil which by the way is another reason the Islam is satanic because Islam believes God predestines people to evil and therefore the author of evil which is slanderous and dangerous to their soul.

If someone quoted Hitler (or another historical figure) then would you be asking them the same ridiculous questions? No, of course not! But when someone quotes *Jesus* then suddenly it’s time to reveal ones hatred toward Christians. Save it for the real enemy: islam.

“Faith is a word used by religious folk to describe a belief based on NO evidence.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“NO evidence”? This is completely false!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The Christian Faith is Based Upon Evidence ~ Is There Any Other Kind?”

by J. Warner Wallace

The Christian life is more than a life of blind trust. It is a life of rational examination that challenges each of us to evaluate the evidence, form a conclusion and then share that conclusion with the world around us. Let’s examine the Biblical model of evidential faith:

Eddie: Back in the days when I was still a college teacher (retired now), I pointed out to my students in the Western Civilization class I taught that there were three ways mankind had of exploring existence and the cosmos. The one common denominator all three ways had was reason. The three ways are 1) theology; 2) philosophy; and 3) science.

Theology uses reason plus faith (to assert there is no reason involved with theology is simply a major error); philosophy uses reason alone; and science use reason plus tested observational methods. Now, being the agnostic I am, I have no faith and so “only” two ways for me of exploring why there is anything rather than nothing are at my disposal. But this does not translate, for me, into the conviction that the theological route is simply wrong. Besides, and as Plato and Aristotle demonstrated quite well, the matter of God, of a higher power, a supreme architect, is not just a matter of theology but of philosophy too. Interesting, no, that both Plate and Aristotle came to the conclusion that there is that higher power, Plate by way of his ultimate Ideal, Kalos (the Good), and Aristotle with his Pure Form.

““What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”. Goes both way. I hear the line “all religions are BS” all too often, making the writer/speaker sound a bit like a mindless parrot. You don’t even bother to explain what “BS” exactly meant to you and given the fact that relgions are so different from one another if you look past those oriental self-absorbed semitic tribal god one must assume that at least they difer in BStyness if not represent an altogheter different mind-set from one another.

Champ, we’re not talking about existence here, we’re talking about abstract beliefs that people accept and adhere to, with nothing tangible to back it up. On the other point, if I am a computer generated robotic response, some human being had to write the code to accomplish such a response. But, as I’m sure you’ll remind me, GIGO.

I accept that Jesus lived, and died on the cross. It’s the “rose from the dead” part that I question, and put in the category of not having any supporting evidence. Whenever dealing with eyewitness accounts from pre-technological societies, I think of Arthur C. Clarke’s statement that, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”

Eddie: How can a Christian rely on reason? Well, why not? It’s the best mankind has even assuming Christianity is the true faith.

And your assumption (and that is what it is) that “Surely reason, like the rest of man’s nature is fallen and unredeemed” is not an axiom, but merely a hypothesis.

Reason has brought mankind tremendous strides when applied optimally, whether politically, scientifically, in the realm of common sense, technologically, etc. Surely, you don’t think a devout but informed Christian should give up on reason because of the metaphorical fall of man. Of do you?

You know, I hope you know that Christianity, just like the American Constitution, is not a suicide pact. Per you, a good Christian only has faith and nothing else. Really want to stand by that?

Ok, so you accept that Jesus lived, and died, but question that He rose from the dead–even though there were approximately 5,000 eye witnesses because, in your view, these people were from “pre-technological societies”? Sorry, but I fail to see your line of reasoning.

To follow this line of thinking, then you must also question eye witness accounts of those whom knew George Washington, since he came from a “pre-technological” society, as well. See why your train of thought doesn’t make much sense to me?

And what makes “pre-technological societies” unreliable, in your view, to passing along accurate information?

To say that the time of Jesus and the time of Washington are technologically equivalent is ridiculous. Just considering the invention of the printing press, firearms, eye glasses, and significantly improved sailing vessels by Washington’s time puts that argument to rest. The scientific method had also been developed. Passing along accurate information requires adequate tools and supplies, as well as an inclination to keep meticulous records. In Jesus’ time, writing tools and supplies were scarce and expensive, plus most people were illiterate. Also, considering that much of what we call scriptures were written dozens of years, sometimes hundreds, after the events took place, and were based on memorized verbal accounts, I have doubts about the ability of pre-technological societies to accurately communicate to us through the centuries.

Passing along accurate information requires adequate tools and supplies, as well as an inclination to keep meticulous records. In Jesus’ time, writing tools and supplies were scarce and expensive, plus most people were illiterate. Also, considering that much of what we call scriptures were written dozens of years, sometimes hundreds, after the events took place, and were based on memorized verbal accounts, I have doubts about the ability of pre-technological societies to accurately communicate to us through the centuries.

“The foregoing is a prime example of how skeptics speak “off the top of their heads,” with no earthly idea as to the actual facts. The implication is that sufficient data relating to Christ are unavailable.

Before we examine the record, we might whimsically respond with an ad hominem point. Could this critic supply, from the Roman records “about every detail of life,” information concerning “olive production” in Palestine for the year 4 B.C.?

Extant Historical Records:

The late Dr. E.M. Blaiklock, a New Zealand scholar, taught Latin, Greek, and the ancient classics for more than forty years. He was recognized internationally for his scholarship. In a brilliant essay titled, “Surviving Literature from the First Century,” Professor Blaiklock has demonstrated that there are almost no primary documents that survey the period that embraces the life of Christ.

For instance, “parts of one unimportant historical work” have survived from the era that parallels the Lord’s earthly life. Velleius Paterculus (ca. 19 B.C. – A.D. 30), a retired army officer and “amateur historian,” produced a “badly written history of Rome” covering that age from the end of the Trojan War to the death of Livia (A.D. 29).

From the forties A.D., through the sixties, very little survives. Blaiklock described the dearth of material in this fashion:

Bookends set a foot apart on this desk where I write would enclose the works from those significant years. Curiously, much of it comes from Spanish emigrants in Rome (1974, 12-13).
It was during this time frame that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke—together with much of the balance of the New Testament—were being produced. These works provide far more information about the condition of Palestine in the first century than anything that issued from Rome. And there is a way to illustrate this in a most dramatic fashion.

Pontius Pilate:

Pontius Pilate was the ruler of Judea from A.D. 26-36. His technical title was “prefect,” a term used with precision by the Gospel writers. Pilate is mentioned in the New Testament by name about twenty times. Aside from these references, there is very little historical information about the man.

Two Jewish writers—Philo (ca. 20 B.C. – A.D. 50) and Josephus (ca. A.D. 37-95)—mention him briefly, and describe the ineptness of his administration. Philo depicts the ruler as “inflexible and relentlessly severe,” noting that he dedicated shields with the emperor’s name in Herod’s temple (The Mission to Gaius 38).

Josephus records that Pilate marched Roman troops, with their pagan standards, into Jerusalem, and that he financed a water supply out of the temple treasury (Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.1-2). He further notes that the Roman governor attacked a group of Samaritans on Mt. Gerizim, killing and capturing a host of them. For this outburst he was called to Rome and relieved of his position (The Wars of the Jews 18.4.1-2). The manner of his death is not known for certain, though Eusebius, a fourth-century historian, asserted that he committed suicide (Ecclesiastical History 2.7).

Tacitus (ca. A.D. 60-120), a Roman historian, mentions Pilate only one time, and that incidentally. He contended that the “Christians” derived their name from “Christus,” who “was executed at the hands of Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius” (The Annals xv.44).

In 1961, a team of archaeologists from Milan, Italy were excavating at Caesarea, just north of modern Tel Aviv. They had been focused upon the huge amphitheater that initially was built by Herod the Great (ca. 73 – 4 B.C.). Among these ruins, archaeologists discovered a limestone slab. It was thirty-two inches high, twenty-seven inches wide, and eight inches thick. A partial inscription was clearly visible. It was not difficult to decipher the complete message. A free translation reads:

The Tiberieum [a temple dedicated to Tiberias] of the Caesareans Pontius Pilate Praefect of Judea has given.
Alan Millard, Professor of Hebrew and Ancient Semitic Languages at the University of Liverpool, has observed that this represents “the only known inscription from his lifetime naming Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor who ordered the crucifixion of Jesus” (1997, 327) (emphasis added).

Let the significance of this sink in—in light of the criticism mentioned at the beginning of this piece. Here was a man who served the Roman government for ten years in one of the political hotspots of the empire. He himself was embroiled repeatedly in controversy. And yet, there is not a solitary Roman archival document that so much as mentions his name!

How, then, could anyone possibly cast a shadow of suspicion upon the Gospel records, due to the fact that there is scant Roman testimony regarding a Galilean religious teacher who lived more than 1,500 hundred miles to the east?

The Gospel Narratives:

Why is it that liberal scholars are anxious to bend over backwards in granting credibility to numerous events of ancient history (many of which are undergirded by the scantest of evidence) yet they obstinately resist granting virtually any audience to the New Testament writings? There can be but one answer: they are militantly biased against the biblical records, hence, reject their veracity—no matter how compelling the evidence!

A.N. Sherwin-White was one of Oxford’s premier historians on Roman culture. In his valuable work, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (1978, 186), the professor demonstrated that the Gospels and Acts are much more historically credible than the common works of the Roman world. For example, the New Testament narratives were written by men who were contemporary with the events they recorded. On the other hand, Plutarch’s Lives of the Noble Romans stands two centuries from the actual events, and Livy’s History of Rome is 500 years this side of its theme. Yet no one doubts the value of these works.

It is readily apparent that the New Testament is not given anything remotely resembling a fair, literary treatment; nevertheless, it passes the credibility test brilliantly.”

Bravo Champ! And now let’s see how Eddie and all atheists use their great intellectual skills to explain infinite regression and the mathmatical probability that random mutations created an intelligent human being. Oh wait they can’t because no human being can.

Today, with up-to date-science, it becomes increasingly clear that the theory of evolution has become the modern-day religion of the educated—and, quite commonly, the religion of the uneducated.

Listen to the amazing words of Charles Darwin, whom many consider the “father” of evolution: “I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions wondering over all the time over everything and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion out of them.” Charles Darwin admitted that his wonderings and suggestions became a religion.

Some might wonder: “Well, how could evolution be considered a religion? Isn’t it based on science?” In fact, that is exactly the problem. Evolution is based more on blind faith rather than on solid evidence of science. According to Webster’s Dictionary: “A religion is a cause, a principle, a system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.” If you use one common definition of faith as “a firm belief in something that has no proof” then modern evolutionists are full of faith. The faith based religion of evolution which lacks any semblance of proof is based on a series of assumptions that are absolutely without proof.

Let’s look at one of the principal doctrines of evolution that is a fundamental part of its very foundation–one of the assumptions upon which the whole theory stands or falls. That assumption is that “since the supernatural cannot be measured by scientists, we must reject the supernatural (or God) as a possible source of the origin of life.” This is about as logical as saying: “Because you can’t prove where your cat went last night, you have to conclude that your cat didn’t exist while it was gone.”

Just because scientists do not have instruments to measure the Creator, this does not mean that the Creator does not exist! As a matter of fact, current scientific evidence in physics and astronomy points to the supernatural origin of the universe. In the last 10 to 15 years, even many of the skeptical agnostics have had to admit that the universe could not have come into existence, on its own, solely within the laws of physics. Evidence of the creation event–which some have called the “big bang”—is mounting, year by year. There has been no past eternity of matter or past eternity of the universe. There was a moment in time when the universe virtually exploded into existence—of course, not as we know it today, but as the very first step in creation.

Instruments aboard the International Space Station, now orbiting the earth, clearly show a universe rapidly moving apart. If one were to calculate backwards to the very moment of the creation event, scientists say that it would be about 14 billion years ago. The universe had a definite beginning and did not exist before that time. Einstein’s famous theory of relativity demonstrated that space, time and matter had a beginning. In Einstein’s lifetime it was considered provable to about ninety percent confidence level. Today, scientists consider the beginning of the universe provable, at a level of certainty that is essentially beyond a shadow of doubt. What does this mean? The universe had a beginning.

The matter and the energy of the universe suddenly came into existence from nothing. Does this violate the laws of physics? Absolutely! It demands a supernatural origin. And that is exactly what God has told us about the origin of the universe in His Word, in Hebrews 11:3: “By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen [the universe] were not made of things which are visible [pre-existing matter].”

So the universe was not made of pre-existing matter. It was made by God with His supernatural, unseen power or energy. We read in Jeremiah 10:12: “He has made the earth by His power, He has established the world by His wisdom.” The religion of evolution denies the supernatural, because evolutionists claim that they cannot measure the supernatural. Yet all of their scientific measurements point to the fact that the universe had a beginning–and actually came into existence outside the laws of physics.

By definition, this proves the “supernatural.” The bottom line is that if we conclude that there is no supernatural, taking it to the obvious conclusion we must then say that the universe does not exist and, of course, neither do the evolutionists. Clearly, then, one of the principal doctrines of the false religion of evolution is improvable and based on blind faith.

Ed Lee: Actually, that is indeed a provocative and valid point made by the late Hitchens. I’m not averring here that Hitchens’ point is beyond refutation, but it is a damn good one nonetheless and those of a religious bent would be foolish to just dismiss it.

Wellington: The greatest theologian of the 20th century, Karl Barth, argued that reason can play no part in theology. Pope Pius 11 described Barth (A Swiss protestant) as the greatest theologian sine Aquinas..

Eddie, you are correct, in part, about Karl Barth’s position; but you’re also being somewhat misleading by giving the Reader’s Digest version of what Barth meant, and remember, context is key. Also important is whether or not Barth embraces a Biblical point of view. Some say, “No.”

Pope Pius II may have described him, as you claim, but that doesn’t mean that Pope Pius II is correct in his summation of Barth’s point of view.

More importantly, however, and somewhat ironically, we must accuse Barth of being unbiblical! The scriptures themselves testify to the validity of man’s rationality and they encourage rational thought about the world we live in. They assert there is a knowledge of God to be found in observing nature. “Come, let us reason together, says the Lord” (Isaiah 1:18).

“Come now, and let us reason together,”
Says the Lord,
“Though your sins are like scarlet,
They shall be as white as snow;
Though they are red like crimson,
They shall be as wool.
If you are willing and obedient,
Isaiah 1: 18-19

What is it about this site that attracts so many low church atheists?? For those not familiar with the term, a low church atheist, is a believer in a system of thought, who knows little to nothing about their own belief system, and even less about other belief systems, which they hate with an irrational passion. They are not well educated, not as a general rule intelligent, and incapable of offering reasoned argument, for or against anything. BC,Eddie, GRgunning,are all alike, in their lack of knowledge, and rabid, fundamental belief in the rightness of their own unquestioned system of rather weak belief. Do they come here, seeking affirmation for their poor intellectual state?

Bravo Western Christian!
Your description of Low church Athesist and their ignorance of other religions and especially of their own atheistic religion is spot on and they are just as ignorant as Muslims who lack any knowledge of the ignorant and despicable person that created Islam.

If someone truly knew who Muhamned was would they really still want to follow this pedophile murdering rapist warlord?

The ultimate culprit again is clearly seen————Vatican II. What a disaster it has been and many times over, not just with its stupid pronouncements about Islam but, among other errors, with the effective destruction of the Latin Mass, unnecessarily turning the altar around which has had the effect of making it look, as one critic said long ago, as though Julia Child were preparing a chicken, the annoying “let us offer each other a sign of peace” crap, and the ushering in of a kind of general relativism and modernism which have done great damage to the Church.

Also, the calumny directed Robert Spencer’s way by Monsignor Swetland is repulsive. Yes, repulsive.

The changes in the Catholic church seem to reflect the times. I found it stunning that in the 1960’s Catholic Priests were teaching that the story of Adam and Eve was just allegorical.(not to mention other OT stories)

The fall toward secularism has been constant for Europe. WWI and WWII were the death knell for organized Christianity in Europe with Christians busy killing Christians; leading to disillusionment.

The Union Jack was placed in the Anglican churches during WWI, freely mixing religion and war. The outcome of that war, laying heavy reparations on Germany, led directly to WWII. If there was no Hitler there would have been another in his place with a post-war “cure” for war reparations that would have led to war.

After two wars, Europe was exhausted with religious justifications for warring and extensive homeland destruction. Religion also faced increasing evaluation by the very rational/empirical thought that led to and was continuing to drive a scientific revolution. Intellectuals like Bertrand Russell launched a full frontal attack on religion.

I think if the US ever has a Europe-WWII-level war, in the homeland, that it would also drift heavily toward secularism. It has been fortunate to not have that experience since the Civil War.

I remember a Christian missionary telling me of a Brit war veteran who slammed the door in his face declaring that no just God could stand by and do nothing in the face of such human destruction and misery that he witnessed. That made me think the vet was right in that justice could never be achieved without the absurd; such as killing Hitler and resurrecting him 6 million times to justify the annihilation of Jews. That would be similar to Allah’s version of Hell. It became obvious that even God cannot provide justice in every case of evil.

Like you, I am forced by lack of evidence and the historical behavior of religion to assume an Agnostic position. I am not an unbeliever in a purpose for life and the Universe, however, most of organized religion is the work of men trying to answer the unknown.

I see the Pope, like the POTUS, as a mouse riding a bureaucratic elephant that actually controls the machinery of power. I expect his incompetence about Islam, as expressed in practice, will be tamed by the bureaucracy below him until his hour upon the stage has passed. He may wish to invite the Islamic knife, yet the Cardinals have their own interest in self-preservation.

I definitely would listen to Robert Spencer’s description of Islamic Ideology in preference to the Pope’s demand that Islam is peaceful. How long would the Pope last, without a protective entourage, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Yemen, Egypt, Iran, Pakistan, or Muslim areas of India? Need more proof?

“a mouse riding a bureaucratic elephant” though the popes and church hierarchy have in the past had more power over the people than any POTUS
A very apt analogy. I think that the majority of Christians do not think much and also neither do Muslims but just accept. Thinking and religion are not very compatible in fact the RC church and Islam actively discourage it. Witness the angels dancing on the head of a pin debate, given that angels are an invention of religion in the first place.
I wonder if Christians think of the glaring inconsistency of the ‘church’ as opposed to the man in a robe and sandals they are supposed to be following. This vast edifice which in the Middle ages was more powerful than crowned monarchs. The clergy and monastic people were not even subject by the laws of the state and the church by fear, manipulation and its own invented laws acquired vast wealth.
Do Christians look at this pope in his flowing silks and jewelry and compare him to Jesus?
Of course they do not. As Einstein said most people would rather die than think, and most people would rather have the church doing their thinking for them..

BC-
As far as I know the “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin” can not be found in medieval and earlier Christian writing. The earliest references found in writing are from the late 1500s, I think.
You can google it. In any case, I get your point.

Consider that in the NT Jesus referred to angels (the angels of children gaze into the face of God – hence the idea of a personal guardian angel – Mt 18:10), and of course they are found in the OT, and there are other references in the NT (Gabriel “appears” to Mary) with angels as messengers of God. Hence, in my opinion, the intellectual interest/curiosity in them by believing Christians.

So, whether thinking about angels is ridiculous or not may depend upon one’s starting point:
Faith seeking understanding vs understanding seeking faith, or a mix thereof.

Not all Christians or those who claim to be one, belong to ‘churches’, so you comment is weak. As is your train of thought. The statement ‘test all things, hold fast to that which is true’, is NOT a command to remain ignorant, quite the reverse. Pity you are content to remain ignorant. Which explains your anger and bigotry.

One of the most inspiring examples of fulfilled prophecy concerns the Messiah’s first coming. Most any Bible dictionary will list the Old Testament prophecies concerning Christ’s first coming and their fulfillment as documented in the New Testament. The Old Testament contains more than three hundred references to the Messiah’s coming.

In his book Science Speaks, author Peter Stoner examined the probability of one person fulfilling just 48 of those prophecies. For that to happen by chance would be one in ten followed by 157 zeros.

As someone calculated, that would be like trying to find one specific electron out of all the electrons in all of the known universe on the first attempt.

And that considers only forty-eight of the hundreds of Messianic prophecies that were fulfilled. In other words, the prophecies concerning Christ’s first coming could never have been fulfilled by chance. They were powerfully predicted and fulfilled in hundreds of exacting details. Yes, you can trust the Bible.

The Union Jack was placed in the Anglican churches during WWI, freely mixing religion and war. The outcome of that war, laying heavy reparations on Germany, led directly to WWII. If there was no Hitler there would have been another in his place with a post-war “cure” for war reparations that would have led to war.
……………………………

Westman, I respect your contributions here a great deal, which is why I find this so dismaying.

Others–usually Nazi apologists, which I’m sure you are not–have made this claim, that allied reparations were so crushing that Hitler had no choice but to invade most of Europe and slaughter vast numbers of innocent people, including six million Jews.

But the facts is that Germany had not been paying reparations for quite some time long before the Nazis rolled into Poland in September of 1939, and had not been paying consistently for even longer.

There was some grumbling in allied countries, but *no one* seriously suggested going to war over this. Moreover, there had been growing calls in allied countries themselves to review and amend reparation payments or even to forgive them entirely, since as early as the 1920s.

One can argue about reparations and whether they were justified or overly onerous, but I don’t believe one can justify the horrors of Nazi Germany based on the comparatively minor issue of reparations.

I find your concern for VII as being valid and it has created numerous problems and the worst of it was that it has watered down the truth of the Catholic faith. But the truth of the Catholic faith has not changed and thereby I hope you hold fast to those truths and not worry or put your faith in men. Jesus gave us great comfort that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Catholic Church.

Wellington, Bravo!! If you are ever in Chicago you have a standing invitation to join us at St John Cantius for 12:30 Sunday High Mass (aka Tridentine). Fr. Phillips our pastor founded a new order with the charism “to restore all things to the sacred ” with the permission of our late Cardinal George and the help of then Cardinal Ratzinger. Take heart, it is the young adults and young families who fill our pews. Julie Child will soon be making chicken for one. 🙂

Wellington – very good and excellent points. You have said you are not religious in any way – yet you have correctly diagnosed the sickness going on in the Catholic Church. As a traditional Catholic who attends the Latin Mass I’ll just say “thanks” and invite you to actually attend a few – even if just to observe the historical aspects.
Mike Poulin

I’m 68 and have never been totally trusting of the Catholic Church —they have a history that I deplored and it happened to many times. Again now they are making the biggest mistake of all of them. I know that in the end they are going to pay a high price for deceiving people of their faith. Because lets get real —we know in the end the catholic church is also part of the NWO. They have been in it up to their eyeballs.Yet this church went after the jews there in europe and across the continent to Mexico . Yet this church says that praying to allah who came after Jesus is ok. Are they for real. Tell their people that is cult is peaceful just put a mark on their necks from these so call peaceful worshipers.. They have even come out and said they want to remove us from our earth What did this Catholic church do in helping the Yesidis people who were getting anhilated . people you see what these terrorist are doing to the Churches. They are coming after all of them people. If you are going to have a service, lock the front door, so they don’t come in slaughtering all of you. They went a killed that 84 yr old priest and cut off his head. What cowards they are. We are in a fight for our faith. There is a time to fight and its now.

Mr. Robert Spencer, the teachings of Vatican II Councel IS NOT INFALLIBLE and NOT binding to ALL Catholics. Do not be deceived on this matter!

So, you are not OUTSIDE the Church if you do not agree with those teachings. Many Catholics, such as Catholic tradisionalists and SSPX, do not agree with Vatican II’s teachings and they are 100% STILL Catholics. More over, ALL saints (such as St. Thomas Aquinas and others) and popes before Vatican II who wrote or talked about Islam, acknowledged that Islam is not from GOD.

Catholicism is not from G-d. Look what this religion teaches….if you open the link below,you will be reading the actual Word of G-d concerning the teachings of Catholicism…I hope you are hungry for the truth

The Truth is more important. G-d of Israel please give everyone reading this forum greater love for the Truth than for anything else in their lives, in Yeshua’s name. Make them hungry for the Truth and give them discernment and cause the Truth to live in them and rule over them.

Only the Truth can set you free and ONLY the Truth can give you eternal life in the presence of the Most High, Whose name is the Truth.

This idiot is enraged over such matters as pilgrimage and the veneration of Mary, but has *no* concerns over Muslims raping and murdering us in the name of their creed.

shosh7154:

The Truth is more important.
………………………

How is failing to stand against the sanguinary horror of Islam while carping on minor points of worship between Christian denominations “The Truth”?

I am not a Catholic, and do not follow all points of Catholic worship. But to consider the saying of the rosary the moral equivalence of raping children and slaughtering unbelievers is just moral idiocy.

Mr. Image, I was responding to your text below when I said the TRUTH is more important:

The fact is that neither shosh7154 nor those he links to would be free to worship and speak now if Catholics *hadn’t* defended against invading Muslims for so many centuries.

And Catholicism never defended me, not during the Inquisition, the Crusades or the Holocaust.

G-d says He will not share His glory with anyone. Catholic doctrine celebrates something called the Assumption which states that the woman who bore the Messiah had no sin being immaculately conceived and therefore did not die but ascended directly into the Kingdom of G-d. Mary is indeed worshiped. If you attend any catholic service, one of the songs you will sing is to Mary asking for her guidance unto salvation and for blessing not judgment. Mary is called the Co-Redeemer with G-d and her official title in the catholic church is the Mediator between the Messiah and the sinner. If you do the simplest search on catholic doctrine concerning Mary you will understand how this form of religion is idolatry and G-d hates it because He is a Jealous G-d and will not allow people to go to anyone but Him for salvation. Also it is forbidden for the dead to contact the living or the living to contact the dead. Mary died and her body is buried in the earth awaiting the first resurrection as every other believer.

Mr. Image, I was responding to your text below when I said the TRUTH is more important:

The fact is that neither shosh7154 nor those he links to would be free to worship and speak now if Catholics *hadn’t* defended against invading Muslims for so many centuries.

And Catholicism never defended me, not during the Inquisition, the Crusades or the Holocaust.
……………………………………

Does shosh7154 *really* believe that he would be free to worship and speak as he does today if Catholics had not stood up *for centuries* and beaten back the Muslim hordes?

More:

G-d says He will not share His glory with anyone. Catholic doctrine celebrates something called the Assumption…
……………………………………

I’m completely familiar with the Assumption. Once again, shosh7154 picks a fairly minor and entirely non-violent point of Catholic worship and hysterically asserts that “G-d hates it”.

Does shosh7154 actually do anything to oppose violent Jihad?

Not that I’ve ever seen.

For instance, when the Islamic State *beheaded a Catholic priest* who was praying at the altar of his church a couple of months ago, the nasty shosh7154 actually used it as an occasion to claim that both Catholicism and Islam “worship false gods and idols”.

The Catholic Church has never taught anyone to worship Mary. So the Church clearly doesn’t say to worship Mary and it is well documented, so by what authority do you have to proclaim something different from what the Catholic Church teaches? you have nothing so please do yourself a favor and stop spewing lies.

Mary had more Children with Joseph and did not die a virgin, Mary was a good, decent,
and loving woman, and Mary is dead (She sleeps now, awaiting the resurrection of the Saints), let Her memory be respected, and let no one use Her good name in flippant conversation.

Catholic only worship God. Sounds to me you have bought into puerile and ill-informed anti-Catholic bias big time. I mean if you want to criticize Roman Catholic teaching, then do so, but do so with accurate knowledge and not with an idiotic parody of what Roman Catholicism really teaches.

Also to shosh-
you quoted some biblical references about Mary to show she is not special. Here is another reference for you from John chpt. 19 with Jesus on the cross taking His last breaths:

26 When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son.” 27 Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his home. 28 After this, aware that everything was now finished, in order that the scripture might be fulfilled,* Jesus said, “I thirst”.

Catholic theology sees Mary as the “new Eve”, hence “woman” (Jesus did not mean it in a disrespectful manner) and “mother”. Also, shosh, notice this is the last thing Jesus says before everything is “finished” as intended. Some see John as representative of all Jesus’ beloved Disciples taking Mary in to their homes. Hence, Catolic and Orthodox veneration of her.

Catholics and Muslims are not fingers on the same hand, whatever derogation is meant by that. Mary is “special” to Catholics and Orthodox; she is Mary, Mother of God – Something Muslims see as blasphemous. To imply that Catholics and Muslims are of the same mind is ridiculous.

Please consider Revelation 12: 1-2, : “A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. …5 She gave birth to a son, a male child, who ‘will rule all the nations with an iron scepter.'”(see Psalm 2:9). The woman is Mary the Mother of God and the Queen of Heaven and Earth (crowned with 12 stars). Her son, the messiah, Jesus, will rule all the nations with an iron scepter.

I am aware that many consider the woman Israel, but that is not the principle meaning of the passage, rather it is a secondary interpretation. The correct interpretation of Mary as the woman in Revelation is reinforced by Rev.12:17 “Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring — those who keep God’s commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus.”

It cannot be said that the rest of Israel’s offspring hold fast their testimony about Jesus. Nor can it be said that Jesus is a son of the Church. No, only Mary is the mother of Jesus and mother of the Church (all Christians) as Jesus stated on the cross just before His death (as Keys outlines).

Also consider the Ark of the Covenant – anyone who approached the Ark must be cleansed of sin to safely approach the Ark. When Uzzah touched the Ark without God’s consent and with irreverence, he died – see 2 Samuel 6:1-7.

Mary is the New Testament Ark of the Covenant that John sees in heaven in the book of Revelation 11:19 following the seventh trumpet: “Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and within his temple was seen the ark of his covenant.”

Do not dare to approach with an impure heart the Immaculate Holy Mother of God. Mary is the pinnacle of God’s creation – a woman conceived without sin, a woman who was a model of humility and obedience for all humanity. The only woman worthy to carry the Christ child. She is no ordinary woman.

Plus she crushes the head of the serpent, thus satan and the demons fear Mary as they fear no other woman. See Genesis, Judith and the story of Deborah (Judges 4-5) in the Old Testament – when the heads are crushed by the woman, this prefigures Mary’s unique role in salvation history.

Would you dare to disrespect your friend’s mother? Please do not disrespect Jesus’ mother and expect His welcome.

None of this website seeks to know the truth: they seek to spread lies. Protestant scholars have long recognized the inherent, anti-Catholicism in Protestantism. Books like “Bearing False Witness” by former anti-Catholics, show how if we look at actual history, not history interpreted through Jack Chick, James White, or Loraine Boettner (among others) we see that the anti-Catholic claims of places like this website fall apart. They are truly lies.

I’m not, necessarily saying you have to believe everything the Catholic Church teaches. But let’s at least examine the REAL information on both sides instead of slandering, perpetuating 500 year old lies and name calling.

Catholicism is reflected in the current pope’s statement that allah is god, just like all the other gods. Every god is the same according to the pope. allah states in his book the quran that G-D HAS NO SON. so the pope is praying to a god that denies Jesus is the Son of G-d.

How old is Moshe who received the Law upon which the Messiah built His “church” ? And how old are the Prophets. Moshe is 3,500 years old and mohamed is alittle over 1400 years. So mohamed took from the already established Word of G-d given to Moshe more than 2,000 years before mohamed was born, twisting it to glorify himself not G-d. mohamed could neither read nor write, so the compilation of writings of hadith and the quran occurred even later making this religion very young. The foundation of islam comes from the black rock in Mecca in the kaaba. The rock representing allah is said to have fallen from the moon thus the crescent moon and the star symbol of islam. There were 450 rocks worshiped in the Arabian Peninsula in mohamed’s day with his uncle being the keeper of the house of rock(S). mohamed threw out the other rocks, three of which were the daughters of the moon rock allah and established a single rock idol which he commanded must be kissed at least once in every male muslim’s lifetime in order to enter the muslim paradise.

My dealings, emails and communications with Clergy of the Unholy Catholic Church (that actually collects monies for the construction of a Mosque) confirm, that:

Pope Francis went over to the DARK SIDE! His new title is now Pope Dhimmi the First. Satan has appointed Pope Dhimmi the First as the “Judas Goat for humanity” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judas_goat)

The clips above describe what Islam really is: The vilest of excreta of man and beast. After Pope Benedict was dethroned, the now Unholy Catholic Church, under the leadership of Pope Dhimmy the First, world wide encourages co-operation with this Satanic creed of shistslam. Thank GOD, that there are still good Catholics in the service of humanity.

This stance seems to be part of the on-going “dialogue” with Islamists instigated by Pope Dhimmi the First and taken up by the Catholic clergy. The Islamists are clear about their beliefs and goals, while the clergy seems deluded and confused. Perhaps a friendly dialogue with the Islamic State, which in many ways represents the true Islam, could clear up misunderstandings about Muhammad and the Qur’an. Christians in the Middle East could be included as well, provided there are any left.

Stuart is a strange one indeed, I remember thinking so while listening to the debate the other day. These days, what with the rapidly intensifying chaos and bloodshed going on in Europe, so clearly and obviously a result of allowing in all these Muslims, it’s rare to find someone prepared to just keep pushing the ‘poor refugees we need to let them in’ line without addressing it at all. Even amongst nation/border hating leftists there seems to be this new sense that they can’t, as they’ve done in the past, just keep beating the bleeding heart drum and act like nothing is wrong. Stuart seems to be an exception to this, he talks like it’s 10, 20 years ago, where the (then lower) levels of this violence could be half-convincingly blamed on other factors provided enough excuses and obscurantism was employed and the audience was willing enough to be lied to. You just can’t do that now, the immediate, noticeable decline in Germany following the arrival of 1 million+ Muslims is too obviously what it is; a direct result of letting said Muslims in. Everyone knows we’ll get more of it if we let more of them, and in fact we’ll get more of it if we don’t, we’ll just get more more of it if they keep pouring in.

I truly do wonder how fast the blood has to flow before some people get it. Do we literally need daily Jihad attacks killing 10 or more people before these people get it? Will they get it even then?

I’m sympathetic to Robert, who is having his branch of faith sawed out from under him.

The irony is, Robert is correct on the doctrine. Not simply about Islam, but that the teaching of the church concerning Islam concerns facts rather than faith or morals. My interpretation is that the infallibility of the Pope and the church concerns doctrine and proper faith. To extend the concept of infallibility to actual situations of fact is like trying to state as infallible doctrine that the earth revolves around the sun, or that light travels through the ether.

I don’t see why the Catholic hierarchy needs to reconcile with Islam anyway. Islam is totally incompatible with any Western religion, so what’s the point in trying to find common religious grounds? Does Catholicism need the acknowledgement of Muslims to accept itself as true?

It’s the nuttiest thing I can think of to attribute infallibility to a statement of factual truth. Catholicism used to be the heir of Aristotelian and Aquinian logic, and is now on the par with Scientology, Moonies, and New Agers.

If Msgr. Swetland is correct, and it is Church teaching that all Catholics must accept that Islam is a religion of peace, then the Catholic hierarchy will have demonstrated that it does not have the authority or reliability in discerning and transmitting the truth that it claims to have

Papal infallibility is limited to Catholic doctrine – NOT to analysing other faiths.

The claim by Msgr. Stuart Swetland that those who criticize Islam are ISIS recruiters is a classic Hillary – Obama meme and is endlessly regurgitated and vomited out in the Leftist ‘news’ media as “We are only giving ISIS what it wants” by criticizing Islam.

He has clearly lost in his argument attempting to show that “Islam is a Region of Peace”. As he has lost this he is redefining the debate to the following:

The Catholic Leadership is inspired by God – you aren’t.
They say Islam is a Religion of Peace. Since you are unable to think for yourself on this matter (because we say so) you should not question us.

Swetland then invokes a series of paragraphs which are supposed to convince the reader that Catholic teaching is that Islam is a religion of peace.

Swetland (and the Pope for that matter) disagree with the obvious fact that Islam is a totalitarian, imperialist, and supremacist ideology that mandates global implementation of Sharia. Islam is clearly not a peaceful religion.

Swetland does nothing disprove this. He only points out that if and when Catholics recognize this obvious fact about Islam, then they disagree with Catholic teachings.

However, as Spencer points out above, Swetland does not even make the case that Islam is Peaceful is actual Catholic Teaching. He does give several paragraphs. Lets look at a few:

Lumen Gentium 25: This is the part where Swetland asserts that if you are Catholic you have to shut off your brain and believe what you are told no matter how obviously stupid it is. He sites laws from 1983 and 1990, these are dates after my baptism, communion, confirmation. Had I been told of these laws at that time I would not have moved forward said sacraments. Anyway this section does not mention Islam only Muslims. It does have a lot of Latin in it.

Second Vatican Council, Nostra Aetate 3: Does not mention Islam. Does mention Muslims. These are not the same.

Paul VI, Ecclesiam Suam 107, August 6, 1964: Does mention the Muslim Religion which we can assume to be Islam. “Muslim religion especially, deserving of our admiration for all that is true and good in their worship of God.” This is a conditional approval of Islam. Islam deserves its admiration for all that is true and good. I think we would all agree that to the extent that Islam is true and good, then we admire it. There is much that is true and good, but there is also much in Islam that is not true and good. We are not told to admire those parts. We are also not given guidance as to which parts are true and good.

John Paul II, Address on Culture, Art and Science, Astana, Kazakhstan, September 24, 2001: Islam is mentioned and in fact there is a clear reference to “authentic Islam”. In this paragraph The Pope helpfully sheds light on his definition of authentic Islam. His definition of authentic Islam is that part of Islam that prays and is concerned for those in need. He does not define unauthentic Islam. If the Koran only said:
“Pray and be concerned for those in need”, then I would have not any issue with Islam. Sadly the Koran says much more than “pray and be concerned for those in need”, and what it says in addition to that is available for the whole world to read.

I will only look at one more paragraph:

Pope Francis, The Joy of the Gospel: Here a different Pope says that “our respect for true followers of Islam should lead us to avoid hateful generalizations, for authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence”. Here the Pope says that the Koran in it’s entirety defines authentic Islam (he leaves out the Sunnah). This is an examsion over the previous reference to authentic Islam. Islamic Scholars have disagreed about what is and what is not authentic Islam since its inception. It is very strange indeed that the Pope claims to have some insight into the Koran that is better than these Islamic Scholars clarifying what is and what is not authentic Islam. Perhaps he should pick up the phone and fix that troublesome Sunni/Shi’ite conflict. It must be nice to be so divinely inspired.

Isn’t it funny how two of the all wise, all knowing, smarter than you, Popes don’t exactly agree on the topic of Islam?

Notably there is quite a bit of Latin in the text of Swetland’s argument. Latin is dead. If the Catholic Church really takes that position articulated by Swetland, then Latin is a very fitting language indeed.

Swetland’s argument remains more of an argument against being Catholic than anything else.

August West says: “Swetland’s argument remains more of an argument against being Catholic than anything else.”

Indeed, it is very troubling for any sincere Catholic causing extreme cognitive dissonance; putting faith and reason in to a seemingly unreconcilable conflict; putting the sensus fidelium (sense of the faithful) in turmoil.

Proclaiming Islam to be a religion of peace as an article of faith to be accepted by all faithful Catholics with failure to do so meaning one is no longer part of the Body of Christ is absurd. Most Catholics will rightly never assent to that.

To even consider that to be an article of faith, or an essential tenet of the Catholic teaching, is not only absurd, it is diabolical. Islam teaches Jesus is not God, that Jesus did not die on the cross, and that there was no resurrection – the opposite of the central Credos of Catholic Christianity, as well as most other Christian denominations.

All belief systems and churches are man made institutions in order to have power over
large groups of humanity. People have created God in their image and not the other
way around. Mankind should start a universal “church” of Humanity….so that at least
then we could end religious wars.
I suggest to listen to Richard Dawkins, or Sam Harris…they and others have very clear
visions on these matters, which everyone can understand.
Belief does not merit respect…reason and facts deserve them.

I am a faithful Catholic, and not a traditionalist nor a member of SSPX. There is nothing in Catholic doctrine that says that I must adhere to any concept of any religion, except doctrinal and moral matters (e.g. abortion) that have been set down by the Catholic Church and must be believed. Comments like those of the monsignor and Pope Francis cause people to “hate” the Catholic Church, as some of the comments on this thread witness. Many, many priests, bishops and cardinals have come out publicly and repudiated Pope Francis’ comments on Islam. And we can go back to eminent saints like Don Bosco and Thomas Aquinas for their comments on the evil of Islam. Robert has been invited to the faithful Catholic Franciscan University in Steubenville Ohio several times to debate the issue of Islam. (See UTube presentations.)You may be assured that he would never have been invited to the campus if he harboured ideas that were in conflict with Catholic teaching.
We would do well to read of several battles that European Christians were engaged in with muslims in previous centuries. They make for very interesting reading. For example, the Battle of Lepanto was fought by the Christian League, under the banner of Pope Pius V on October 7, 1571. It was a naval battle assembled by the Christians off the coast of Italy and fought in the Mediterranean near Greece. Its purpose was to stop the Ottoman Empire from islamic expansion into the west. As the battle raged on that day, the Pope had asked all Catholics in Europe to pray the Rosary for Christian success. And they were successful! As a result, Our Lady received another title: Our Lady of the Rosary,(originally called Our Lady of Peace) which is celebrated by Catholics on October 7! Does Pope Francis not realize why that date is celebrated and so loved by the faithful?

As I’ve said numerous times here, I think the Monsignor is emblematic of many modern Christians: they believe Christianity is good, but they don’t really believe it’s true.

While Christians are indeed called to love Muslims and honor their dignity as humans created in the image of God, in no way are they called to celebrate Islam. Indeed, true Christianity is horrified by a belief system that denies the work of Christ, and venerates a false prophet. St. Francis of Assisi didn’t walk into Muslim camps unarmed, staring death in the face, because he wanted to have a “dialogue with Muslims to show he respected their faith”—he went in to convert them to Christianity. If one truly loves Muslims, one would be heartbroken at the thought of them denying the goodness of Christ and worshipping an evil man like Muhammad.

Robert said “In 50 or 100 years, the Catholic Church will see that I was right.” I absolutely believe this to be true.

Yes, Islam is the devil religion, Muslims are the lost son,they are our brothers in humanity ,but who believe in Mohammad teaching who submits himself to Islam teaching become a Satan ,from there, they are devils children, the only God will work with them. We are weak when it comes to Satan .we should reject them any where ,to protect our soul until they become a humans.
Shame on Catholic priests who ignored Jesus teaching and appraised a fake,fault,devil ,sex religion .

The statement made over and over … “Although not acknowledging him as God, they venerate Jesus as a prophet, his Virgin Mother they also honor, and even at times devoutly invoke.” … is the KEY statement. Why can’t the Pope and his Islamic supporters SEE!?!?!?

Their god is not God. Monotheistic is not the only definition of the Messiah. He is a Triune God. His Mother Mary, who they propose to ‘venerate’ is NOT the Blessed Virgin. She is not the MOTHER OF GOD as God is Triune. Jesus the Second Person.

Why can’t they see this? So they worship, fast and wait for the Resurrection. SO. Does that mean they are Catholic founded on the teachings of Christ and the Holy Church? NO they hate and despise Catholics as they are the light of Christ as opposed to the darkness and demonic origin of Islam.

Love this article. It shows definitively the errors of the ‘new’ world Church.

Is there room in the Catholic Church for those who don’t believe Islam is a religion of peace?
………………………………

In the broad sweep of history, the answer is “of course”. It is, in fact, incumbent on good Catholics–and all good Christians–to oppose evil, and that very much includes the evil of Islam.

But right now under this clueless and appeasing pontiff? That is a much murkier question…

More:

Msgr. Swetland also has some highly insulting and defamatory things to say about me personally. One is that I’m an ISIS recruiter: he claims that “Spencer’s interpretation also allows these radical groups to say to potential recruits, mostly disaffected young persons who are susceptible to radicalization, ‘See, even our most vocal opponents agree with us that our interpretation of Islam is the correct one.’”
………………………………

What *utter calumny*. This would be like blaming Winston Churchill for Nazi Party recruitment, since he agreed with Hitler that Fascism was violent.

As Robert Spencer notes, this is ridiculous–Muslims only point out Spencer as a critic of Islam who should be silenced or harmed, not as a corroborator of Islamic doctrine. They point to the Qur’an, Hadith, and model of the “Prophet” for that. Moreover, pious Muslims had been waging violent Jihad for over 1300 years before Mr. Spencer was even born. They do not need his help for recruitment.

More:

Over the centuries many quarrels and dissensions have arisen between Christians and Muslims. The sacred Council now pleads with all to forget the past…
………………………………

Most of the “quarrels and dissensions” between Muslims and Christians have not been over fine points of religious doctrine.

Instead, they have been over this fundamental disagreement: Muslims want to conquer, oppress, and murder us; we would prefer that they didn’t.

Islam *has not* forgotten that goal–they are working almost everywhere to implement it now, and to do so violently.

That so many of their *victims* have forgotten it will just make Muslim conquest all the more likely.

Msgr. Swetland is no bishop, and he’s certainly not your local ordinary, Robert. As a Melkite Catholic, how can this arrogant, shallow man presume to call you a moral dissenter? Ridiculous! Don’t even begin to suggest that you are somehow “excommunicated”–when you know full well who the real moral dissenters are, and what immense scandal they have given.

August West, you’ve really said it well; Swetland lost his argument, and all he has to fall back on spurious arguments and strained, jerry-rigged interpretations in a vain appeal to authority.

No ecclesiastic authority is going to impugn your good standing in Christ’s holy church, Robert–so stand fast, and show us all that unctuous addle-brains don’t define the truth, as if it were so malleable as to contradict both reason and the Apostolic faith.

Mr. Spencer & all Catholics, all Christians really should check out the Aug 3 columm by Fr. George Rutler at crisismagazine.com entitled “Tolerating Terror”. Erudite, witty and spot on. If you are going to judge the Church by her priests, do not do so without reading the many writings of Fr. Rutler.

Mr. Spencer, it will be Catholicism’s loss if you leave the Church. The problem is that I tried that once, and I came back a little better than a year ago because of the True Presence, in which I really do believe. A priest friend suggested looking into Orthodoxy which I am currently doing. Since Patriarch Kirill of Moscow seems to be the only prelate with the brains to perceive and the stones to say that Christianity is in a Holy War against islam, I am seriously considering conversion. I am also increasingly impressed by Vladimir Putin, who I’ve learned is a devout Christian man who has vowed to defend Christianity in response to Patriarch Kirill’s statements. In fact, he did just that in Syria beginning in last September (2015), and may choose to do so again. Compare that with Catholics I know, who wring their hands in supposed concern while voting for hillary clinton!!! (By the way, look up the statistics and information on abortion in Russia. Who is really supporting a Pro-Life agenda?) The Catholic Church is quickly losing this member of the faithful, and this time, I won’t be coming back.

Rosewood, I’m afraid that Putin has done a great deal to enable a nuclear Iran, and Chechnya has become a Shari’ah state on his watch. He has said that Russian Orthodoxy has more in common with Islam than with Catholicism–which is quite troubling–and that Muslims should settle all over Russia, including in Moscow. His opposition to Jihad was been hit-or-miss at best.

And while is down somewhat from the shockingly high rates of the Soviet period, Russia still has the highest rates of abortion in the world.

In 2010, the abortion rate was 37.4 abortions per 1000 there, compared to 13.2 abortions per 1,000 in the United States.

Patriarch Kirill of Moscow has said that the West “should learn from Russia to accept Muslim refugees”:

“Unlike the West, which is already nervous about the arrival of refugees, Moscow alone has taken in more Muslims than the whole of Europe has done by now. And nobody in the world is aware of it. And there is no hysteria, no police, no gas, no physical clashes,” the patriarch said at a meeting with Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas at his residence in Peredelkino, Moscow Region, on Thursday.

Thank you, gravenimage, for your very thoughtful response.I’ll check out your reference. It makes me sad to hear that Russia is in worse shape in regards to muslim refugees than I thought. I had not heard that story on Patriarch Kirill, The story about him calling the Christian clash with islam a Holy War was all over the place. And I’m very sad to hear about Mr. Putin’s statements. I guess things are tough all over!!! When Christ returns, will he find any faith left!?! Sad to say, now we know what he meant.

Dear Rosewood, I was not trying to sadden you. The fact is that both the East and the West have been very uneven in opposing Jihad, and have both in various ways cluelessly enabled Islam at times.

Of course, Patriarch Kirill’s inconsistency on apprehending Islam as a threat should not dissuade you from exploring Russian Orthodoxy, any more than this pontiff’s shortcomings should turn someone against Catholicism.

All humans are flawed in their understanding, and right now “political correctness” and willful ignorance about Islam is rife, and not just here in the West.

Please answer this post if you are Catholic.
(Non-Catholics, I love you like a brother or sister, but this is only a request of Catholics. Instead, try to think how you feel as an American–or whatever country is yours–about how your own government is betraying you. For us Catholics, we have that same feeling both politically and religiously. Thank you for honoring my request.)

1. Where does freedom of conscience fit into this?
2. I thought the Pope was considered infallible ONLY when speaking ex-cathedra on matters of faith and morals.
I have read that there are actually only 2 cases historically (for any and all Popes combined) when a Pope so spoke and that both concern Mary, Jesus’s mother.
3.Please if you have names of saints, missionaries or martyrs who clearly strove against Islam and its false prophet, send me their names. We are after all, one with all the Communion of Saints. And I feel like I need some company.

To respect all persons is a call of our baptism. Yet Jesus’ call on us is to be true to Him and to His words and teachings. I have no doubt about the evil in Islam as shown by its fruits. I have no doubt about my Christian calling. Yet the situation in the Catholic church is extremely painful. My own church is quite progressive so I have been visiting elsewhere. I am starting to wonder if this current situation (with Islam redefining “peace” as submission) is what led Jesus to say, ‘I have not come to bring peace but division.’

1) Freedom of Conscience is always a part of Catholic Doctrine, HOWEVER it is defined as a conscience that is formed by Catholic teaching. Freedom is defined as the ability to do as you ought (i.e. freedom to obey authentic Catholic teaching) NOT freedom to do what you want (unless what you want is to obey authentic Catholic teaching.) It’s like saying: now that you have a license, you’re free to drive a car. This freedom means obeying the traffic laws so that everyone, and you, are free to not get killed.

2) You are correct. Fr. Swetland – with whom I vehimately disagree on the issue of Islam – is not arguing that the Pope’s statements are ex-cathedra. He’s arguing that we owe “religious assent” which is a step down from there. My argument – which you picked up on – is that we owe religious assent when a pope or bishop teaches about faith and morals. Telling us what Islam is and teaches is NOT Catholic faith and morals. So Pope Francis’ statements about Islam being a religion of peace goes under the same category as his belief that the Argentinian Soccer team is the best….

There have been other ex-cathedra teachings. Remember just because we DEFINED ex-cathedra in Vatican 1 doesn’t mean it didn’t exist before that. Some would argue that Peter’s declaration in Acts 15 was ex-cathedra. I’ve also heard – though I have not had the time to research – that the declaration of a Saint is an ex-cathedral recognition of the reality in Heaven.

This Catholic priest is adept at quoting Catholic documents that are authoritative for Catholics. Why does he have such a hard time understanding Spencer’s appeal to authoritative sources in Islam? Spencer does not reject the authority of the church to speak authoritatively on matters of Christian faith and morals. And he shows absolute integrity in allowing the authoritative sources of Islam to speak for themselves. Why is it so difficult for the Catholic hierarchy to show this same integrity?

As an atheist this seems abut as pointless as arguing over how many angels dance on the point of a pin. What a waste of words. Religions are insane. Of course that doesn’t mean they are all the same. There are different kinds of insanity. Catholics like a likeable but eccentric uncle who wears his underpants on the outside and thinks he is superman. Islam is more like the creepy old guy who lives alone in the house down the street and who is later found to have chopped up young boys buried in his basement.

All the world’s political and spiritual leaders are joined in a shared fantasy. Our leaders are totally out of touch with both their constituency and reality itself. We are fast approaching some kind of tipping point. I do not refer to those we are told will trigger irreversible ecological disaster, but rather to a tipping point of global consciousness that will trigger a loss of collective faith in our leaders and precipitate a period of anarchy, chaos, and revolution.

The Catholic Church has been losing relevance at an accelerating rate in these past decades and lost many followers in North America and Europe. Attendance at churches all over America has dropped off and one by one these churches have been closed and sold off. There are many reasons. Rising levels of education, the Internet, and a revolution in spiritual freedom from orthodoxy that began in the sixties. Of course we know that the biggest contributor to this loss of the faithful was corruption within the Church itself, as pedophiie priests all over the world were exposed and condemned. Only in the Third World has the Church managed to hold on and even expand in places like Africa, though Brazil, which was 99% Catholic just a few decades ago, is now down to 80% and still falling as we speak.

People are waking up everywhere and questioning their leadership. Everywhere in Europe we see the rise of the Right, and it is just a matter of time before we witness the breakup of the European Union as we know it today. Meanwhile, this solidarity with Islam as expressed here in Robert’s article will be no less than the end of the Church. Like the European Union, the once mighty Catholic Church as well will reach its tipping point as people everywhere abandon it in droves.

Statements like the following demonstrate that the Catholic Church has finally “jumped the shark”.

“Authentic Islam: the Islam that prays, that is concerned for those in need.”
“For authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.”
“We reject any effort to claim … religious inspiration … for such contemptible acts [of violence].

“Authentic Islam” is ugly, violent, and oppressive, as amply demonstrated by the Wahabis who consider themselves the most authentic of mainstream Muslims. Now, they make the claim for authenticity, but all the other leading schools of Islam also consider themselves to be adherents of “authentic Islam”. Whether it be the Hanafis in Pakistan or the Shiites in Iran, or everywhere in between, Islam is ugly, violent, and oppressive. How is it that the Catholic Church could possibly dispute and reinterpret their Islamic beliefs as something benign, peaceful, and spiritual?

Finally, there is the life of Muhammad himself. He is the most authentic Muslim there ever was, and his representation of Islam has to be more authentic than the Pope’s. When we examine Muhammad’s life, we find nothing whatsoever that resembles the Pope’s vision of Islam. Muhammad was hardly “opposed to every form of violence”. To the contrary!

Here is a recent statement from a group of Bangladeshi apostates living in the UK explaining the reasons why they have abandoned Islam:

“One who claims to be a messenger of God is expected to live a saintly life. He must not be given to lust, he must not be a sexual pervert, and he must not be a rapist, a highway robber, a war criminal, a mass murderer or an assassin. One who claims to be a messenger of God must have a superior character. He must stand above the vices of the people of his time. Yet Muhammad’s life is that of a gangster godfather. He raided merchant caravans, looted innocent people, massacred entire male populations and enslaved the women and children. He raped the women captured in war after killing their husbands and told his followers that it is okay to have sex with their captives (Qur’an 33:50). He assassinated those who criticized him and executed them when he came to power and became de facto despot of Arabia. Muhammad was bereft of human compassion. He was an obsessed man with his dreams of grandiosity and could not forgive those who stood in his way…”

The statement continues,

“Muhammad was a narcissist, like Hitler, Saddam or Stalin. He was astute and knew how to manipulate people, but his emotional intelligence was less evolved than that of a 6-year-old child. He simply could not feel the pain of others. He brutally massacred thousands of innocent people and pillaged their wealth. His ambitions were big and as a narcissist he honestly believed he is entitled to do as he pleased and commit all sorts of crimes and his evil deeds are justified.”

Truth can be found just about anywhere. We can find truth in literature and even truth in music. A single note may ring true. A carpenter may true up a piece of wood. We can find truth in Christ’s teachings. Even if you don’t believe in an historical Christ, there is a certain harmony in his words that finds resonance with many who are familiar with them.

We can find truth in the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi, whose profound spirituality and belief in justice inspired the world. We can find truth in the teachings of the Buddha, which offers a holistic view in counterpoint to Western philosophies that separate Man and God. It is also said all truth can be found in the Lotus blossom, a thing of perfect beauty.

There is no truth to be found in the Quran. Islam became corrupted from the moment Muhamad picked up a sword and felt the thrill of lust for worldly power sending a shiver down his spine. It is at that very moment it all went so very wrong. Before that moment he may have been a ray of light. After, he was a fallen man with a corrupted soul who led his followers astray.

Like the story of Icarus or Dante’s Inferno, Islam could have been a great myth with a moral lesson and thereby be “truthful”. “Take heed – do not be like this ambitious fool Muhammad who traded his soul for a sword!” …but Islam actually believes Muhammad was chosen to be the Messenger of God! Such arrogance on top of such ugliness and everything else that is wrong with it. Islam has no humility.

Vatican II documents are not “binding” at all on Catholics. They are in effect “pastoral opinions” without the weight of dogma at all. Many subjects written in Vatican II documents are in direct contradiction to centuries of Church teaching and so are invalid, or simply ideas made up by the bishops at the time without support of Scripture nor Sacred Tradition.

Mr Swetland is a purveyor of lies, typical of the Vatican II cult. He can only quote documents post 1965, and nothing before then to prove his case. He is the worst example of a Television Personality pretending to be a Catholic Priest, who cares more for his career via self-promotion on the EWTN Television network , climbing the ladder of media Fame in the Vatican II cult than the teachings of Jesus Christ, very similar neo-Catholic like Mr Barron.

This is not diercted to anyone, in reply to any comment, but since there is so much about God.

Many people think they know of God, but do they really know Him? Jesus Christ came to reveal the Father to mankind. God is love, and you can know Him! Many people know of God. But do they really know Him? The truth may surprise you!

“How good it is to know the Lord this morning!” said the emotional preacher. “Amen,” echoed several in the congregation. Have you heard people talk in this glib manner about their God and Creator? Such folks honestly believe they are glorifying the Eternal God by this kind of talk. They are—on the whole—quite evidently sincere. But many non-religious people, especially those who are less emotional, just smile to themselves when they hear this—and feel that these sentimental people have been misguided into using religion as a means of “letting off steam.” But do any of these people even “know the Lord” at all? Putting our personal feelings and preconceived ideas aside, how can we really “get to know” God?

God Reveals His Nature There are three basic means by which you can come to know and really understand the true God—the Creator of the universe. The first way is by carefully studying what God has produced—His creation—the thing we sometimes call “nature.” The Apostle Paul knew this. He was inspired to write: “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made” (Romans 1:20). God’s supreme intelligence is so evident in His creation.

This is a law-abiding universe. God is clearly revealed in nature as a God of law and order—of supreme wisdom and purpose behind everything He does. Try to break the law of gravity sometime! The unity of nature—the constancy of inexorable law—points to the nature and character of the Creator. God’s creation did not evolve! Its laws remain the same. Charles Darwin’s own son said, “We cannot prove that a single species has been changed.” God decreed in Genesis 1:25 that every plant and animal should bring forth “according to its kind.” Not once has this decree been violated. God’s laws do not change!

All creation thunders forth this truth. This principle applies to spiritual as well as physical things. Study God’s creation if you truly wish to understand your Creator. The Bible and “nature” both teach that God’s plan and His laws do not change. “The works of His hands are verity and justice; all His precepts are sure. They stand fast forever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness.” (Psalm 111:7–8).

Second Witness Needed In contrast to the united testimony of nature, human beings are divided and confused in their ideas of God. It has been said, “Man creates God in his own image.” In the majority of cases, that is true! People of every nation and tongue have always worshiped something. But their “god” is usually a product of their imagination—a god that conforms to their current human standards, laws and ways of looking at things. Even today, most professing “Christians” read their own idea of God into the Bible. We all know of people who think of God as a kindly, sentimental and very prudish old fellow who would be shocked to tears and completely upset if any of his children should go to a dance or drink a glass of wine. Their concept of God is just as narrow and limited as their own environment, training and mental outlook has been.

Other people go to the opposite extreme. They think of God as a far-off spiritual power, who has little or no direct interaction with the human family. They imagine that God is “wise” enough to leave us alone to choose our own amusements, society and laws—and even our own religion the way we want to have it. Such people think they are philosophic, cosmopolitan and “modern.” So, they picture God in their own image!

The Holy Bible is the revealed word of the Creator God. It was written to show us the nature of God, and how we should live and worship Him, that we might become His children. Diligently studying your Bible is the second way to come to know God. It is the second witness needed to dispel humanity’s confusion in its ideas of God. The Bible Carries Authority If you have proved and really believe that the Bible is the inspired revelation from God to man, then you should clearly realize that God’s word is not to be argued with—or falsely interpreted to support pet doctrines. We may have had our own preconceived human idea of God. But if we want the truth, we must put that aside, and search God’s word to find out how He reveals Himself to us. Remember: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). The Bible is meant to correct and reprove us—to show us where we are wrong. Will we let it?

God says, “I am the Lord, I do not change” (Malachi 3:6). We find that Jesus Christ is, “the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Hebrews 13:8). The Father and the Son do not whimsically alter their plans and principles—or their laws. They “do not change.” At this point, it is important to realize that Christ was the God or “Lord” of the Old Testament! In John 1:1–5, we find that Christ was the “Word” or “Spokesman” who was with the Father from the beginning. All things were created by Jesus Christ (v. 3; Colossians 1:16). Christ was the spiritual “Rock” who protected the children of Israel, and it was He who gave them the Ten Commandments (1 Corinthians 10:1–6). God in the person of Jesus Christ is the One who gave the law that most preachers scorn today! Why do people hide their eyes from the Christ who is supreme Lawgiver? Do they think Christ has changed? Your Bible says He has not changed! God’s methods and laws are consistent from Genesis to Revelation.

If you do not believe in and try to follow Jesus’ example, you do not understand what kind of God the true God is. You are ignorant of how to worship and obey the God and Father of Jesus Christ. What was Jesus’ example? Jesus’ entire life is a perfect example of obedience to God’s law and His rule! He said, “I have kept my Father’s commandments” (John 15:10). His own teaching was simply a magnification of God’s law (Isaiah 42:21). Actually, He came in the flesh to magnify His own law—the Ten Commandments! Remember, He was the God of the Old Testament who gave the Ten Commandments and dealt with Israel (1 Corinthians 10:1–6). When He came in the flesh, Jesus kept that law to set us an example. He was our “light,” our example.

A true Christian is one who follows Christ—who follows that example. Do you begin to see the true nature of the living God? He is the One who has set all physical and spiritual laws and energies in motion. He has an overall plan for this earth—He is Supreme Ruler. The Word came in the flesh as Jesus Christ, to preach the good news of God’s kingdom—His government. Jesus always preached that gospel. Philip preached it (Acts 8:12). The Apostle Paul preached it all through his ministry—even to the Gentiles at Rome (Acts 28:31). It is the only true gospel! God’s Character God is a ruler.

If we become His begotten children through repentance, baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38), we can be “born again” into His Kingdom (John 3:1–8). We can be changed into—actually born—of spirit as literal Children of God! God is reproducing Himself! He, the Creator and Ruler of the universe, is begetting human beings through His Spirit to be born as His Children—to be in His own family and inherit eternal life. But before God will make us His own Children and grant us eternal life, we must first learn how to live. We must develop God’s wisdom—His character. We must “live by every word of God.” Realizing that our Creator knows best, we should obey Him. To deny this is to admit a profound ignorance of the Eternal God’s great wisdom and purpose! It betrays a lack of understanding of the character of the true God.

The Apostle John summed it up when he wrote of Christ—the God of the Old Testament, the giver of the law: “He who says, ‘I know Him,’ and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him” (1 John 2:4). God Himself calls lawless ministers liars when they try to deny the authority of His rule, the wisdom of His law and the very basis of His great purpose! It is time to wake up!

May God help you to repent of defying His rule and breaking His laws, and guide you to accept Christ as your Savior from sin. Then you may begin to develop the character of God and be born of the Spirit as one of His Children in the resurrection.

You need to come to know the true God as your Father. Talk to God Once you actually begin to know the true God—the God revealed by Jesus Christ—you will want to talk to Him. And you can talk to Him in prayer. This is the way you may genuinely come to know the true God. As you come to know God in this way, you will soon realize that you need to obey God if you expect an answer.

You will also find that God is love, and that He will gladly grant any request that is good for you under the circumstances. You will discover that He has power to heal you when you are sick, to deliver you in miraculous ways from trouble and to bless you in a manner beyond human comprehension.

So, get to know God by talking to Him every day! And remember—the combined testimonies of nature, of the Bible, and of answered prayer all reveal the same true God. He is the All-Wise, All-Powerful, Law-Giving Ruler of the universe. He is your Father. I hope you will be willing to acknowledge His government, obey His laws, and inherit eternal life as His child!

God knew before He ever made humans that we would choose to teach ourselves,
thus we see the first man, Adam doing just that, even though he had much time to
learn with God’s help, and was warned it would not work, He chose to teach Himself.
Adam made the same choice we would have made. But we can not survive a mixture
of right and wrong—right and wrong don’t mix.

This time of experimenting in religion, education, government and everything else,
is at an end now. God will bring it to a halt just before we destroy all life on earth.
It is man who causes suffering not God. All the Earth will soon begin a thousand year
rest, under Jesus Christ, there will be no need for doctors, policeman, soldiers, and so
much more that man needs now, these will all be unnecessary, very soon.

God has allowed this confusion for a reason: so that humans may learn in due time
that truth will not prevail over error by any power within any created being’s hands!

Only God knows all things and has both the character to reveal ultimate truth and the power and intelligence to teach its application for the good of everyone.

And He does so with the cooperation of every individual’s free moral agency! He will not force His truth on anyone—but He does insist that people choose the truth once it is revealed to them, or else suffer the necessary and inevitable consequences they bring on their selves.

Archbisop Pozzo said, in regards to regularization of the SSPX specifically that Vatican II document were not binding, ecept of course where they simply resatate what has been believed from the beginning

Jihad Watch readers need to be aware that statements coming from the “official” Catholic Church come from those at the top who currently hold position and power in the ecclessial structure. Those same persons are mostly infected with the heresy known as Modernism, including Pope Francis, and often times do not know or teach the true faith.

The very effort to try to prove the existence of God is an insult to God. Would you like to have somebody standing in front of you busy proving that you exist?
Faith in God is the attitude that God is looking for in order for him to prove to us that he exists together with us (Immanuel): “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.”

No, not if you see reason as a God-given gift. Faith pleases God, but that is does not preclude seeking to know the truth via other methods. This argument that you use seems to stem from the Protestantand gnostic attitude that created things are bad and only spritual things are good. You are coflating a man looking for proofs to prove what his faith tells him is true to the sinful act of “testing” God. It is two different things.
God laid out the truth to be discoverable by His creatures. Hence there are tools like logic and mathematics that allow you see patterns in nature that are like signposts to the truth. So for example, a man like Medeleyev can could create his famous periodic table without knowing anything about underlying electrons and neutrons by recognizing the patterns .

“14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”

Faith comes by hearing the apostolic proclamation not by winning an argument or providing a doubting scientist or philosopher with probabilities.

Nothing in Scripture precludes scientific inquiry – in fact it almost requires it. In this mode of inquiry we can observe the greatness and beauty of created things and from this comes a certain knowledge of the Creator:

Wisdom 13:5 For from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator.

The Bible is clear that the very existence of creation gives glory to God:

So there is no inherent evil in using the tools of human inquiry to observe the glory of creation, because in doing so you give glory to God, much like when you praise a painting you are actually praising the skills of the artist.

The wise men used their scientific knowledge of their time to observe the star of Bethlehem, which led them to the infant Jesus:

Matthew 2:2 …asking, “Where is the child who has been born king of the Jews? For we observed his star at its rising, and have come to pay him homage.”

Know creation and you can see the glory of God.

Psalm 19:1 The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork.

The use of the scientific method to help prove the existence of God does not offend Him, it actually gives Him glory and praise for in the act of inquiry we can see the hand of the Creator and His purpose:

Psalm 97:6The heavens proclaim his righteousness; and all the peoples behold his glory.
So we do not insult God by inquiring – “behold” about His creation – it actually furthers the purpose of giving Him glory

Revelation 4:11 “You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created.”

Faithful people have no fear at all of the scientific method because when this God-given tool is applied properly it can only reveal the truth of creation, which only gives more glory to God who is all truth.

“Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.” –

So why then are Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins not at all impressed by that? Because they want evidence, evidence, evidence, where is the evidence —?
But they are the enemies of the gospel for our sake!

But the apostolic proclamation of the gospel and believing in the gospel transcends this objective and scientific knowledge of God and provides salvation:

“But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.”

What a wonderful letter this letter to the Romans is! No wonder St. Paul exclaims:

(For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.)

33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?
35 Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?
36 For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.

Mubarak–who regularly lauds Muslims raping Infidels, even *six-year-old boys*, is now holding forth on what supposedly offends Christianity. How perverse.

And no–his views here have nothing to do with Protestantism, but just with Islam.

He has claimed several times here before the Christianity does not allow inquiry or reasoned thought–but that is true of Islam, not of Christianity. Mubarak occasionally poses as a Christian here–usually to castigate Christians for opposing Muslim violence–but it is seldom very convincing.

He also likes to smear Atheists and Jews, but only to split the camp of the victims of Islam. Ugly, ugly stuff.

Yes God can and does prove Himself, now faith is what God gives us if we seek him
diligently through His word, where He reveals the mind of God, it is how we get to know him, the way he wants to be known, by letting Him explain what He is willing to share with us about Him—So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. (Romans 10:17)

Part of the answer is the fact that extremely few professing Christians really study their Bibles! So they do not “prove” virtually anything they believe by carefully researching it in the Bible! Yet the Bible says: “Prove all things, hold fast that which is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

The key issue, then, is our desire and willingness to get back to the true Christian faith, “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). Are you willing to genuinely try to follow the Christianity of Christ?

Putting our personal feelings and preconceived ideas aside, how can we really “get to know” God?

Michael Poulin: I agree with your rebukes to Mubarak about reason and its worth, also how it is not an insult to a higher power to employ reason in order to discern to some extent the nature of that higher power if indeed such a higher power exists. But I would point out here Kant’s conclusion that existence is not necessarily a category of an idea and therefore, a la Kant, all intellectual proofs for God’s existence ultimately fail no matter how clever they are. This is why Kant came up with his moral argument for the existence of God, which I personally think also fails though indeed worthy of attention. And thank you for your reasoned comments.

Thank you. I am not a philosopher so I am not familiar with Kant so I will have to read up thanks for the tip. As far as “evidence” goes everyone can argue what constitutes good evidence like lawyers do, but isn’t all evidence “circumstantial”? even so when several different lines of reasoned argument, several different approaches seem to point towards one conclusion we have to be willing to make a reasonable conclusion. Even a strict scientist has to start with some basic assumptions such as “what I am seeing is real” in order to make any progress.
Some scientists have floated the idea that all existence is reduceable to ” bits” of knowledge ; or the common phrase is “it from bit” which if true would seem to indicate reality is more an idea than a material object. Kind of like the clash between Plato and Democritus…no?
PS I am curious how you know so much about the Latin Mass and Vatican II etc…

Thank you for your reply. Yes indeed, give Kant a look. Actually, he was mortified by his revolutionary conclusion that all intellectual proofs for the existence of God ultimately failed because, as I already mentioned, existence is not necessarily a category of idea. This is what moved Kant, who believed that God existed, to come up with his Moral Argument, though I think this brilliant argument as well fails because of 1) the instinctive factor for the preservation of life, even noticeable by such lower animals as bees and ants; and 2) because of the empathy factor due to man’s complex thinking capacity. But I digress here.

As for all evidence being circumstantial, no it isn’t, at least legally speaking (I am a lawyer but please don’t hold this against me). Some evidence can be direct (e.g., an eye witness to a murder).

Not being religious myself, I am nonetheless respectful towards the necessity of religion in public and private life for the body politic at large (unless it is Islam). Directly relating to this matter, I see things in terms of probabilities. For instance, I think it was probable that mankind would develop a religion or two that would work quite well with democratic tenets. Mankind did. It created Judaism and Christianity, which two religions, because they place so much emphasis on the worth and dignity of the individual, are very compatible with democratic principles. Hinduism and Buddhism are also fine in their own way, possessed of subtlety to be sure, but they don’t value the individual as much as the previous two religions I named (due to the multiple lives element and collectivist thought n general). But they are certainly no threat to liberty here on earth. But I also believe it was highly probable, not a given but highly probable, that mankind would create a religion which was rotten to the core. Mankind did. Mankind created Islam. This religion is exceedingly awful——-many times over. I agree with Arthur Schopenhauer’s assessment of it, to wit, that it is a despicable doctrine. A society would be better off with no religion than with Islam.

I do think a religious person has to be careful about providing proofs for God’s existence or proof for certain religious declarations (e.g., Jesus rising from the dead) because if proof can be established for a religious contention then what is the importance or necessity of faith? No one needs faith to know that George Washington was the first President of the United States under the Constitution created in Philadelphia in 1787. But to accept something like Jesus rising from the dead, or the existence of the Trinity, must ultimately rely upon faith and not proof——or what is the point of faith? I do sympathize with religious people who, quite understandably, want to proffer proof for what they believe, but I think I have provided you enough information here for you to conclude the deep-down problem in doing so.

Which takes me to David Hume. This great Scottish philosopher proffered many sapient assessments but one of his most sapient, I would argue, is that no religious miracle can be accepted unless the non-miraculous explanation for the religious event in question (e.g., Jesus’s resurrection) would be even more incredible than the miraculous one. For instance, and following up on the example I gave, one could argue that there was a secret passage to Jesus’s tomb, he wasn’t put in the tomb in the first place, the Roman guards were bribed, were drunk, or both, and on and on with non-miraculous explanations like this.

As for reality being more of an idea than a material object, hmmm. Not quite sure what this means. Respecting my knowledge of the Latin Mass, et al., I was a pre-Vatican II altar boy——twelve years of Catholic schooling and all that. Though an agnostic, I respect the old-school Catholicism instilled in me, not the least of it being a basic knowledge of Latin and, a la Socrates, that there are moral absolutes (or at least we have to pretend there are, a la Voltaire, who said that if God does not exist we must invent Him).

Many serious scientists are advancing a theory that our Universe actually has the characteristics of being a computer simulation. Many open- minded scientists are coming up with experiments that test this theory. It is very interesting theory to say the least – and- if true it begs the questions: who created the simulation?

The problem among many Catholics is they think to be a good Catholic, you have to believe every piece of crap coming out of a Pope’s mouth. But of course this is simply untrue. The proof can be recognized from Scripture –
Saint Peter denied Jesus Christ three times even after receiving “the keys of the kingdom” which is the power to “bind and loose” according to the Church. So therefore all the words of a Pope do not bear equal weight. One has to compare what might be claimed to be “the Faith” to what Scripture and the Tradition handed done the centuries says.
Unfortunately most Catholics today do not know their faith, nor the Scriptures, nor the Tradition and are helpless when attacked by morons such as Swetland and Francis.
God help us- this guy teaches seminarians!

The Vatican II documents Mr Swetland quotes are from a 1960’s council that defined itself as pastoral and non-dogmatic and therefore not binding on Catholics conscience. This plus the fact that the Vatican II Council writings were full of ambiguity and error by design of faithless liberals who were there to undermine the Faith.

( In the following quote Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize, professor of theology in Ecône, responds to the article by Msgr. Fernando Ocariz that appeared in L’Osservatore Romano on December 2, 2011 (see DICI no. 246 dated December 9, 2011)

The fact of Vatican II: New teachings contrary to Tradition

” On at least four points, the teachings of the Second Vatican Council are obviously in logical contradiction to the pronouncements of the previous traditional Magisterium, so that it is impossible to interpret them in keeping with the other teachings already contained in the earlier documents of the Church’s Magisterium. Vatican II has thus broken the unity of the Magisterium, to the same extent to which it has broken the unity of its object.
These four points are as follows. The doctrine on religious liberty, as it is expressed in no. 2 of the Declaration Dignitatis humanae, contradicts the teachings of Gregory XVI in Mirari vos and of Pius IX in Quanta cura as well as those of Pope Leo XIII in Immortale Dei and those of Pope Pius XI in Quas primas. The doctrine on the Church, as it is expressed in no. 8 of the Constitution Lumen gentium, contradicts the teachings of Pope Pius XII in Mystici corporis and Humani generis. The doctrine on ecumenism, as it is expressed in no. 8 of Lumen gentium and no. 3 of the Decree Unitatis redintegratio, contradicts the teachings of Pope Pius IX in propositions 16 and 17 of the Syllabus, those of Leo XIII in Satis cognitum, and those of Pope Pius XI in Mortalium animos. The doctrine on collegiality, as it is expressed in no. 22 of the Constitution Lumen gentium, including no. 3 of the Nota praevia [Explanatory Note], contradicts the teachings of the First Vatican Council on the uniqueness of the subject of supreme power in the Church, in the Constitution Pastor aeternus. ”

The Secretary for the Unity of Christians said on 18 November 1964 in the Council Hall about Nostra aetate :
“As to the character of the declaration, the Secretariate does not want to write a dogmatic declaration on non-Christian religions, but, rather, practical and pastoral norms”

Archbisop Pozzo said that Nostra aetate does not have any dogmatic authority and thus one cannot demand from anyone to recognize this declaration as dogmatic. This declaration can only be understood in the light of tradition and of the continuous Magisterium.

Thank you and yes he is a Modernist.
The problem is most Modernists do not know they are infected with Modernism because that is all they have been taught and so are for the most part ignorant. There is a faithlessness in the Catholic hierarchy today too that is corroding the Church from within, – much like shipworms attacking a wooden boat, eventually the boat sinks from too many worms eating the wood. But there is no excuse today for any Catholic to be ignorant of what the Church taught centuries before Vatican II – it is easy to search the Church Fathers and other teachings over the Internet.

No faithful Catholic should ever subscribe to the idea that Islam is a religion of peace when it is obviously inherently violent and teaches ideas contrary to what the Church has always taught, and its errors continuously condemned by the Church.

Mr Swetland and Mr Bergoglio are fools who deny the truth in front of their eyes. False shepherds – blind guides.

No Catholic should ever feel the need to leave the Church because of these false shepherds – and I claim that they are false by the evidence of the rotten fruits of Vatican II.

Catholic obedience is never a blind obedience – one cannot obey a sinful order -period. Else we would devolve into a JIM Jones People’s Temple personality cult. The weapon to use is the power of discernment – test what is good and keep it – throw away the chaff.

I think it is evident that there is a drastic change in the Church’s opinion and attitude regarding Islam since Vatican II. Current teachings are very distant from the opinion of saints, martyrs and popes of the past. Many people could perciebe that change as a capitulation. When the Church talks about an interfaith dialogue based on commonalities like good manners, morals, etc. it feels like it is downplaying its core beliefs and again looks like a surrending in the defense of the true faith on Jesus Christ.

Personally I dont think it is a surrendering on evangelization of muslims, but a change in the strategy. In order to evangelize Muslims the church first needs to approach them and be able to talk to them. The old confrontational attitude was fruitless. My point is the Church is not going to convert many muslims just saying Mohamed was a false prohet and the koran is a falsification. A more diplocatic approach is needed.

“Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the middle of wolves: be you therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.”

you say “then I will follow in the footsteps of another notorious Catholic detested by the hierarchy, the monk who said, “Here I stand. I can do no other.””

Indeed!

And this detested monk also said

“Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. May God help me. Amen”

The German police found a car broken down on the Autobahn. Attached to the windshield was a note:

Iche stehe hier; ich kannst nichts anderes. Gott hilf mir. Amen.

Sorry. Couldn’t help myself.

All joking aside, the dispute between Callixtus and Frankie Boy which Robert exposes is one reason why I firmly believe that the Reformation remains relevant, and why I continue to identify as an Evangelical [i.e., Protestant] Christian.

And, to take a look at the issue which Robert raises, I’ll note this much of the quote from the Documents of Vatican II:

“The Church has also a high regard for the Muslims. They worship God, who is one, living and subsistent, merciful and almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth (Cf. St. Gregory VII, Letter III, 21 to Anazir [Al-Nasir], King of Mauretania PL, 148.451A.), who has spoken to men. They strive to submit themselves without reserve to the hidden decrees of God, just as Abraham submitted himself to God’s plan, to whose faith Muslims eagerly link their own. Although not acknowledging him as God, they venerate Jesus as a prophet, his Virgin Mother they also honor…. Further, they await the day of judgment and the reward of God following the resurrection of the dead. For this reason they highly esteem an upright life…”

I don’t quarrel with the wording I have reproduced above. However, this Muslim zeal for God is, as the Apostle Paul said, “not according to knowledge” (Romans 10:2). While the context concerns the unbelieving Jews of the 1st century A.D., Paul’s words aptly describe many in later times as well.

By the same token, I have a high regard for the old Chinese traditions of Kong Zi and Lao Zi. However, it is a shame that they did not recognize that the _Dao_ (道) is an eternal person, the Word of God who became flesh, dwelt among us, and worked redemption for us in his sinless life, atoning sacrifice of himself on the cross, his resurrection from the dead on the third day, and hiss ascension into Heaven to rule all things.

As an Evangelical, I similarly mourn that my Muslim neighbors deny the divine preservation of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments and excuse themselves from reading them (a little like modern Western post-Christians, I note); deny that Jesus truly tasted death for us on the cross (Heb. 2); and that he is God Incarnate. These denials undermine the foundation of peace with God, and are why Islam is no religion of peace.

_____________

Thanks to Wellington, Ed, and others for contributions to a discussion about faith and reason. I would, however, like to throw in a couple of other obsservations.

(1) Many say they appeal to reason, when they in fact appeal to empirical evidence. This is especially noteworthy in those who follow 20th century scientism (something different from science, BTW).

(2) Alasdair MacIntyre observed that words like “reason” and “justice” take their meanings from the traditions of discourse in which they are used. Uncle Kepha, while saddened that MacIntyre moved to Rome rather than back to his original Reformed faith after abandoning atheism, sees this observation as very profound. But, as a translator, Uncle Kepha also believes that it is possible to talk acrosss borders between these traditions.

In the interchange between Robert and Msgr. Swetland, it appears that Robert is speaking from both the empirical facts of existence of religious minorities in Muslim-dominated regions and from a perspective that Christians of various denominations might share; the Monsignor is a muddled modernist.

The RC church is and always has been throughout history as dictatorial and totalitarian as the USSR. The fantasy of an old man elected by a committee of mostly old men being the conduit to ‘god’ and ‘infallible’ is ludicrous. The problem is there are millions of the simple minded who beieive it

I have not read all the comments but I am surprised that no one including Mr Spencer mentioned that a previous pope, I am sure it was Benedict 16th quoting a previous Holy Byzantine Emperor.
as follows for which he got in a lot of trouble and was forced to apologise

“The emperor certainly knew that Sura 2, 256, reads: ‘No force in matters of faith’. It is one of the early suras, from a time — as experts say — in which Mohammed himself was still powerless and threatened.

“However, the emperor of course also knew the requirements about the holy war that were later formulated in the Quran. Without going into details like the handling of the owners of the scriptures, or non-believers, he (the emperor) turned to his interlocutors — in a surprisingly brusque way — with the central question after the relationship between religion and violence.

“He said, I quote, ‘Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.'”

The Organization of the Islamic Conference, in a statement released Thursday, said it “regrets the quotations cited by the pope on the Life of the Honorable Prophet Mohammed, and what he referred to as ‘spreading’ Islam ‘by the sword.'”

“The attribution of the spread of Islam around the world to the shedding of blood and violence, which is ‘incompatible with the nature of God’ is a complete distortion of the facts, which shows deep ignorance of Islam and Islamic history.”

Muslim Brotherhood Chairman Mohammed Mahdi Akef also expressed anger over the pope’s academic speech.
It seems ‘papal infallibility is only upheld when it suits

The Church makes no dogmatic comment about Islam, but it does make many dogmatic assertions, such as the Trinity, that holds Islam as anathema. If Swetland is renouncing these dogmas, he is subject to censure by the Church.

Swetland also violates the cannons of the Church (which is a sin) by his personal attacks. This public act of sin should be denounced by the archbishop and probably would be, if the archbishop knew about it.

In the Church, the most significant comment on Islam is the “Summa Contra Gentiles” by St. Thomas of Aquinas. It a categorical listing of all that is wrong with Islam, and no one has ever answered it. Swetland is saying that he is smarter than Aquinas, but he is unable to refute any of the points made in “Summa Contra Gentiles”.

The official position of the Church is that every Muslim has to decide to decide to convert to Christianity in a radical way. Any Muslim that fails to do that will never have a beatific vision of God in the afterlife. Any person (even a pope) in the Church who fails to teach those dogmas, is definitely a heretic.

The love that Christians have for each other doesn’t extend to everyone. If the people reject Christianity Jesus (in the Bible) tells us to reject them. This is not a “convert or die” assimilation. Jesus gives them a choice, and we need to evangelize them by our word and deed. Yet if they reject the teaching, then Jesus tells us to “shake the dust” from our feet and go to the next town. Is Swetland saying that these commands from Jesus are now obsolete? If Swetland doesn’t believe that Jesus is God (and must be obeyed), is he Christian?

If the Catholics do not return to the truth, then their religion is not different then Islam because bowing to statues and idols are as pagan as kissing a black stone for their forgiveness of sins.. it is all Paganism and political

which Roman Pontiff? Pope Francis, who declared that “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence,” or Pope Callixtus III, who in 1455 vowed to “exalt the true Faith, and to extirpate the diabolical sect of the reprobate and faithless Mahomet in the East”?

One can adopt the principle of abrogation, as Islam does. Later sayings of the pontiff override previous pontiffs.

You do know what infallible means I suppose. How is it infallible if a few decades later another pope says somethign to the contrary?
As to Islam, which is not comparable as it has no central body like the various churches;
you refer to Islamic sophistry? Have you heard of taqqyah?
Mohammad according to Muslims is the perfect man and final prophet, one cannot then hold that view and then say what he said can be contradicted or changed in meaning

The Lutheran Protestant Church of Sweden is much worse than any other Christian church in its defense of Islam as The religion of peace. The Archbishop – you can ask the question if she is Christian at all, or even religious – devotes her time to writing articles together with various democracy hostile imams.

Islam är fascism, and one of the signs of fascism is fraternizing with the cultural and political elite of the enemy they want to crush.

Champ beat me to the punch re Karl Barth. As a Protestant of the Reformed variety (an heir of the Swiss-Rhenish-Puritan Reformation), I believe that Barth did the churches a great dis-service by his rejection of natural theology. Had he been a bit more appreciative of all that went before–including Calvin, whom he claimed to follow–he would have noted that the whole of the Western Christian tradition affirms that “the light of nature” reveals God’s existence, although it takes man only far enough to recognize his own lostness/alienation from God.

In defense of Barth–and I would not consider myself a Barthian– his rejection of natural theology represents a rejection of the sort of theological liberalism which gutted Protestantism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and which has been gutting the RC church since before Vatican II. Theological liberalism allowed natural theology (what can be known of God by unaided human reason) to destroy traditional systematic theology, reject the doctrine of original sin, and marginalize the Bible. Barth, who was schooled in this tradition, saw it literally blown to shreds in the carnage of WWI. His rediscovery of the Book of Romans led him to reconsider the importance of the biblical categories of sin and grace and re-appreciate the ideas of the Reformers.

However, while I sympathize with Barth’s return to the Scriptures and the Reformers (I’m a child of America’s crisis of liberal theology that happened in the 1960’s and 1970’s myself), I am of the mind that he did not go far enough–including, perhaps paradoxically, the Pauline affirmation of a kind of natural theology found in his indictment of the Gentiles in Romans 2:14. Further, as someone who has engaged in cross-cultural mission, I see a kind of natural theology in Ecclesiastes 3:11 (where the ESV and NASB are better than the KJV) as well as in Rom. 2:14. Paul also stresses Christ as the Wisdom of God made manifest in the Corinthian and Colossian epistles; while for John (and, perhaps, Philo before him) Jesus Christ is the _Logos_. All this points to reason as being an important part of the divine image in man, which can reach its fullest potential only under the grace of God revealed in Christ.

Yes, Luther, whom I deeply respect, spoke _die Hure Vernunnft_(Harlot Reason). But here it is important to recognize that all faculties of fallen man are corrupted, and turned against the purposes for which God gave them. Faith itself (our set of axioms?) can be corrupted into something which the Puritans called “vain credulity”.

The Church has aggressively fought heresy from the beginning of the Church. The Nicene Council was in response to the Arian heresy. Athanasia and many bishops were jailed and persecuted for fighting the Arians and the church ultimately stamped out the Arian heresy by boldly calling it what it was, a Heresy. Islam has to be the worst Christian heresy in church history as Islam steals from Judaism and Christianity and demotes Jesus to a man and a man who is beneath a pedophile rapist murdering warlord named Muhammed. For Monsignor Swetland or any pope to deny that Islam is a heretical attack on Christainty is in effect aiding a heresy. I do think the popes are doing this but instead these popes were trying to evangelize the Muslims by saying that there is some truth in islam as there is some truth in most religions. These small truths can and should be used to build off these small truths to get to the higher truth as taught by Jesus. However Monsignor crosses the line by his appeasement and support of a heretical and dangerous cult that denies reality and then uses Jesus to promote a disgusting human being like Muhammed so they can murder innocent life and to implement their supremacists Nazi style control.

I care about my people. I don’t care about the ‘Middle East.’ The Middle East for almost 2,000 years has been the same. It’s the same war, the same conflict. So, why do I have to put my people inside that war? Why?…I am angry because I know Islam very well. In Baghdad they blew up my church. I drove by three bombings, and twice my car was destroyed. I got shot in my leg by an AK-47 – by Islam, and they kidnapped me for nine days…You know who represents Islam very well? The Islamic State. They are the true Islam. So if someone says, ‘No, they do not represent Islam, Hamas does not represent Islam, Hezbollah does not represent Islam.’ Who’s left then? Come on guys. Come on. Wake up. You know, stop saying those stupid things – it’s just stupid. What for? If I lose the last drop of our blood, what is the point of that?
– Fr. Douglas Joseph al-Bazi, Chaldean Catholic

Mr. Spencer, ask a catholic bishop, if his relegion is better than the islamic faith! You will have no clear answer, for the bishop is afraid to be called a religious supremacist.
Till now the catholic church had a serious pressure: You will be damned if you not follow us! That is over, for now the abrahamitic religions are all good ways to the same god. Therefore religious assent is ridiculous!
Priests go home, you are no longer necessary?

Mr. Spencer I was raised a Catholic and left the church many years ago, for reasons having nothing to do with the church’s “teachings” about Islam (don’t recall any such teachings back then). As demonstrated over and over again during the priest sex abuse scandals, most key Catholic Church officials are simply incapable of comprehending and dealing with real world problems in a realistic way.

The Catholic Church needs clear thinkers like you if it is to remain relevant. What I really dislike about this Msgr is that he is essentially threatening you with de facto excommunication unless you ignore all your hard won knowledge (obviously borne of years of study and experience) toe the line and buy into some half-baked Papal nonsense about Islam. It’s the same thing we hear from our gov’t; let’s all close our eyes, tap our heels together and say “Islam is a religion of peace” and eventually the Taliban, Al Quaeda, ISIS, Hamas, Wahabbis, Deobandis will all morph into Quaker pacifists. Who are you going to believe, the Pope or your lying eyes?

What a morally bankrupt, utterly worthless institution the Catholic Church has become.

What if we took Jesus’s words and replaced weeds with Muslim and Islam?

Matthew 13:24-30
24 Jesus used another illustration. He said, “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who planted good seed in his field. 25 But while people were asleep, Muhammed planted Islam in the wheat field and went away. 26 When the wheat came up and formed kernels, Islam appeared.
27 “The owner’s workers came to him and asked, ‘Sir, didn’t you plant good seed in your field? Where did the Islam come from?’
28 “He told them, ‘Muhammed did this.’
“His workers asked him, ‘Do you want us to pull out the Islam?’
29 “He replied, ‘No. If you pull out the Islam, you may pull out the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest. When the grain is cut, I will tell the workers to gather the Muslims first and tie them in bundles to be burned. But I’ll have them bring the wheat into my barn.’”

I just listened to the good Msgr’s closing comments and felt like vomiting. So the Catholic Church has supposedly received some sort of divine insight on Islam, that “good Catholics” had better accept as some sort of article of faith? What total mumbo jumbo nonsense. Deeply disturbing.

I think terminology is important, and it helps to place the meanings in the proper context. Yes, Islam is a religion of peace. Once everyone converts to Islam and submits to Islamic rule, there will be total peace. Islam rejects violence because there’s no need to be violent if non-Muslims either convert to Islam or pay the jizya, with willing submission. Islam rejects terrorism, which can be defined as the use of force resisting Islamic conquest. Islam respects other religions, as long as its adherents do not resist Islamic rule, refrain from drinking alcohol, gambling, eating pork, criticize Islam, repair or build new houses of worship or leave their women uncovered in public. Islam respects and honors women, as long as they are obedient to their husbands, never go out unchaperoned, stay covered and do get raped. The Pope has a point – on top of his head..

The Catholic Church is the one true Church started by Jesus Christ HIMSELF. He picked a traitor as one of His apostles! You can bet there will be traders in his church. We do not bases our faith and love for Christ and the traitor within but rather on the true teaching of Christ, and His apostles interpreted for us and proclaimed as doctrines and dogma by the Magisterium in union with the Pope who are guided to ALL Truth by the Holy Spirit, as promised.

We are NOT required to believe every word that comes from a popes mouth! (Thank God!) I stand with Pope Callixtus III and all those that have fought islam since its inception by a demonic “angel of light” in a cave. God did NOT send an angel to muhammad to correct the errors of Christianity. Satan sent a demon posing as an angel to battle against Christ’s Church and snatch as many souls away from God as possible. We are in a spiritual battle with evil! Satan has recruited a human army through a false religion he created! How brilliant is that?

NOT all muslims have accepted the evil but each and every one of them is in danger of falling, at some point, for the LIES of the “Father of Lies” because the teachings of islam are so forcefully pushed on them. They can hardly escape indoctrination because they are brainwashed from the cradle. They seriously need the message of Jesus Christ to set free from satan’s lies. They must be rescued from the pit NOT told the pit an acceptable place to worship God as long as they don’t “approve” of the evil their muslim brothers do! That is simply crazy!

Who gives a ***** whether Islam is a religion of peace or not? The real question is, is it a religion of truth? If it is the Mgr should become a Muslim and if it isn’t, neither he nor the rest of the church should be defending it in any capacity whatsoever.

Just curious
Do you actually believe that Islam’s lecherous pervert and (sex slaver) founded anything based on TRUTH and that of all the people in the world, God would choose someone as shamelessly DISGRACEFUL as Muhammad to be his Messenger?

I am a faithful Catholic. I will remain so. Fr. Swetland is wrong, pure and simple. As Catholics we owe assent to our bishops in matters of Catholic faith and morals. NOT matters that are not faith and morals (like whether or not a certain football team is better than another) or faith and morals in other religions.

I have a close personal friend who works at Relevant Radio. The vast majority of the feed back from listeners is, despite being given much less time, Robert Spencer was not only seen as the clear winner, but very convincing.

Again, priests, bishops and even the Pope can be wrong in “off the cuff” comments, personal beliefs and non Catholic faith and morals issues. My bishop, for one, is in agreement that there is evil that needs to be confronted in Islam. I have asked him to start called for the Templar to to be reinstated to protect Catholics, and any innocent people as well.

I’m Catholic and I’ve been very concerned about the failure of the Church to deal forcefully and firmly with Islamic militants.

Within the Church I constantly hear the refrain that Islam is a “religion of peace” and that Catholics must respect and revere Islam. Yet when I have pointed out and asked about the obvious Koranic verses and Sura that condemn Jews and Christians and incite jihad on them, my questions are either ignored or dismissed with condescension.

I was very dismayed by Pope Francis’ reaction, or lack of it, to the obvious Islamic murder of Father Jacques Hamel.

The Church does and says nothing when Islamists openly announce their intention to conquer Rome (i.e. the Vatican), to fly the flag of jihad from St. Peter’s Basilica and to impose sharia on Europe and on non Muslims.

the RCC has been thru this many times & Im sure left much written about How to defeat Islam. He is confident the western armies will But for now hes like “the spider to the fly” looking at all the new converts hel get. They know of the deaths of so many white , apostate Europeans but theyl be replaced by Eastern, Aisian or African. Remember, if the Vatican survives, theyve won the war.

Again, READ Father George Rutler in Crisis Magazine his August 3, 2016 article on Tolerating Terror and previous sermons, columns have spoken with the clarity and erudition we expect from this man.
He was at Ground Zero on the morning of September 11, 2001 and gave general absolution to PD and FD heading in to what would become their tombs. He also helped carry bodies and body parts from the jumpers to Trinity’s tiny graveyard where they were laid during the chaos. HE GETS IT!!!!
Do not despair.
Joseph of Arimethea was a Pharisee who “got” Jesus so much so that he provided the tomb.
St. Robert Bellarmine “got” Galileo and his writings.
There are priests who get it.

“I merely had explained the Church’s normal teaching on self-defense in the face of terror. Apparently, it was something of a revelation to Catholics who have been formed in the present generation to respond to terror with balloons and Teddy bears. In summary of what I said, the Catechism (2265) cites Thomas Aquinas to assert: “legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty from someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the State.” ”

“Long-term solutions are no consolation to Christians right now as they are beheaded, burned alive, tossed from rooftops, mutilated, and crucified.”

Is Msgr. Swetland for real? Has he passed Logic 101? What is peace? Does he define it ? No. He assumes that apples and oranges are the same- the peace of Islam is the same as the peace of Christ? No, your Monsignorship. The peace of Islam is the peace of the grave for non-believers. Or the peace of jizya or enslavement. The peace of Muslims in charge and all others as slaves.This is the peace of the ‘religion of peace.’

Apostolic exhortations do not rank very high when considering magisterial texts. It is therefore difficult to reconcile Msgr. Swetland’s claim that these rise to the level of the solemn magisterium.
I would also refer readers to the critique of Pope Francis’ approach to Islam written by Father Samil Khalil Samir, a Rome based Jesuit. Father Samir sharply criticized the pope’s comments on Islam and was never contradicted by the pope for having done so. In fact, Pope Francis promoted him!
His article is here: http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Pope-Francis-and-his-invitation-to-dialogue-with-Islam-29858.html

Excellent piece by Shamir, especially informative for many would be Part C “Points that Require Clarification” on the critical differences between Christianity and Islam on beliefs some think are held in common.

I’m puzzled.
I hear no nonsense about Islam from Hindus, Sikhs, a few Jews, most Atheists, a few Muslims, and no bull from an apostate Muslim.
If i mention the evil of Islam to a Christian who is in the public eye then he neither agrees or disagrees. I know he agrees by his non verbal reaction.
If I mention the beast that is in Islam the Christian does not agree or disagree, maybe cos the evidence is so spacey, but becomes quietly serious as if considering it. If there is a Chritian woman present then her agreement is obvious but still non verbal.
It’s like most Christians won’t say that Islam is attacking all infidels on all of the levels, but they know.
This is separate from the famous apologists.
Do traitors only exist in Christianity?
Is Islamophobia spoken by only Christians?
Something isn’t adding up, it suggests treachery to me.
Just wondered.

Msgr. Stuart Swetland is a frustrated Kansas city liberal who convinced me that Pope Francis is his god. He has left common sense at the door and is more than happy to prove that it is better to pave the way for ISIS fighters from Syria to enter this country as refugee’s.
He and Francis proved their utter disdane for Christians when:
1. Francis brought only Muslim refugee’s back and leaving the Christians behind; and
2. The USCCB made millions of dollars bringing 99% Muslim refugee’s to the US.
Swetland has convinced me that Robert is 100% more Catholic than this hypocrite will ever be!

The catholic church and it’s “teachings” don’t mean anything. The only teachings that are truth come from Yahweh not the catholic church. I keep thinking that it is the catholic congregation that was told to “come out of her my children” . There are many Christians within the catholic church but those such as the pope I every reason to believe are like the pharisees .

Another point to be made are the remarks of Pope Benedict XVI who referred to a “weakness” in the text of Nostra aetate. His comments were published in L’Osservatore Romano on August 2, 2012. The Pope said: ” In the process of active reception, a weakness of this otherwise extraordinary text has gradually emerged: it speaks of religion solely in a positive way and it disregards the sick and distorted forms of religion which, from the historical and theological viewpoints, are of far-reaching importance; for this reason the Christian faith, from the outset, adopted a critical stance towards religion, both internally and externally.” if then Nostra aetate has a now perceived weakness in it, we must conclude it is not of a Magisterial status that would make it irreformable or irreversible.
Link to Pope Benedict’s remarks: http://www.vatican.va/special/annus_fidei/documents/annus-fidei_bxvi_inedito-50-concilio_en.html

I suspect that the Catholic Church’s reluctance to deal with the fact that its religious orders have become safe havens for sexual perverts seriously weakens its ability to speak out about the dangers of Islam.
“Who are WE to criticise others?” Hm?

I think you have a point. There is a reluctance on the part of Bishops to deal with reality. When the scandal of child molestation broke, the Bishops really didn’t seem to and still don’t -get that They were part of the problem. Their scandalous behavior of putting child molesters back into new parishes without warning anyone, putting the so called experts (psychologists) in charge, when it is They Who are the Experts on Sin.
They were a bunch of “nice” guys without backbone, and still are.

Mohammad was a False Prophet; how could this not be so? There is no 3rd “Abrahamic” religion, it’s a big lie.
Again, they are so reluctant to say so,

Robert,
In all respect, you should have taken the opposite tact of showing what the Magisterium has taught about Islam through the centuries, and stressed the difference between “respect for Muslims” and “respect for Islam”. There are plenty of arguments to make in that regard, statements of past Popes and Bishops, Saints, and the fact the number one instigator of Catholic Martyrs through the centuries has been Islam.

Don’t be roped into this false understanding of the “Magisterium of the now”. There is no such thing.

I walked out of mass last April over a call to open up our borders to terrorists masquerading as refugees. I will not be going back to the Catholic church until this anti-pope is history and the little boy bunging, heretical, treasonous bishops have been purged, excommunicated and, preferably, burned at the stake.

For the sake of all or for your sake. It’s quite clear to me that the Church’s position is to find the best possible way Christians and Muslims live in harmony. It can’t be solved in one-shot definition of one’s stand. It will forever be a process.

Attaining peaceful solution for each phase as the world goes on with its inhabitant’s ever changing culture is already an achievement. Anyway, Christians are only expected to hold on until the second coming of their King. And that’s it.

I apologize if someone else has already asked this question. Is it true that the Qur’an teaches that the worship of the Triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is “excremental”? Or is this a misinterpretation of the text?

I think Msgr Swetland should take a sabbatical and be sent to France to take the place of the priest murdered by those two violent Muslims. Replace Fr Jacques Hamel, Msgr, consider what he went through, and just maybe your misguided attitude will chance.

Thank you, Mr. Spencer, for your excellent work! As a fellow Catholic, I applaud your clear and correct defense. Sadly, there are many prelates of the Church who are either poorly catechized or put other agendas above saving souls. They need our prayers.

Lots of good insights, Robert. Keep in mind, however, that Luther was indeed a heretic/apostate from Catholic teaching whereas your positions are not heretical. The Msgr. is simply wrong on many accounts as you and others have rightly pointed out. As such, even to make a point, Luther’s stance is not one to be emulated in any way because he based it on wrongly understanding Church teaching and preaching in accordance with his wrong understanding. Much better to emulate the apostle Paul who challenged Peter to live up to appropriate Catholic behavior, etc., without fear of being declared an apostate. He remained a faithful son of the Church and so should you no matter how many clerics protest against your speaking the truth.

Also based on our Lord’s promise to the Church, it is not possible for it to declare your position on Islam as a religion of violence to be heretical, etc., and so it cannot ask you to make a silly statement that contradicts your position even if most clerics believe it to be so.

Interestingly, there might be a way to turn the tables on those who insist on the false claims made by Msgr. Swetland and others that “Islam is a religion of peace.” You could actually state this is partly true so long as it is simultaneously recognized and declared at the same time that it is also a religion of violence, etc. So when asked, you could indeed state something like “Yes. Islam is a religion of peace in some respects, but it is also a religion and ideology of violence, barbarism, extremism, and a denier of basic human rights enjoyed by all human beings.”

Canon Law should apply to Msgr. Stuart Swetland since he interprets Vatican Council II irrationally, with Cushingism and has changed the Nicene Creed and the defined dogma EENS

Canon Law should apply to those who interpret Vatican Council II with Cushingism and so are theologically and doctrinally a break with Tradition,Scripture and the past Magisterium.
Canon Law should apply to Msgr. Stuart Swetland since he interprets Vatican Council II irrationally. He assumes hypothetical references are actual, known persons in the present times.1
So Lumen Gentium 16 would refer to a person saved in invincible ignorance in 2016, or in the past,without the baptism of water.Msgr. Stuart Swetland would then conclude that this person is a known exception to the Feeneyite interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS).
He has changed and so rejected Feeneyite EENS and he has changed and rejected the Nicene Creed ( Feeneyite).The Nicene Creed’s ‘I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins’ is changed to ‘I believe in three or more known baptisms for the forgiveness of sins they are the baptism of water, desire, blood, invincible ignorance, seeds of the Word etc.’ Most of them are without the baptism of water.
He has also rejected Vatican Council II (Feeneyite) and offers Holy Mass with this first class heresy.
Canon Law should apply to Msgr. Stuart Swetland and popes and ecclesiastics in first class heresy according to the hierarchy of truths of Pope John Paul II.
When Msgr. Stuart Swetland changes the Nicene Creed and the defined dogma EENS,it is automatic excommunication.
Now he is unable to proclaim the Catholic Faith. He is not faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church. He cannot say that that all Jews,Muslims and other non Catholics in 2016 are oriented to the fires of Hell with no known exceptions ( Cantate Dominio, Council of Florence 1441, Vatican Council II AG 7, LG 14, Dominus Iesus 20 etc, Catechism of the Catholic Church 845,846,1257 etc).They do not have ‘faith and baptism'(AG 7, LG 14) , they did not convert into the Catholic Church.
-Lionel Andrades

Of course Islam is a religion of peace, just ask the sincere protester holding a sign saying, “Behead all those who say Islam is not a religion of peace.” When I say this, I thought that it was ludicrous since it is self-contradictory on its face. Later I learned some startling things about Islam from which one may conclude that the sign holder could be entirely sincere. I hasten to add I am not an expert, but I believe the following basic statements will bear inspection.

First of all, I was astonished to learn that Islam does not recognize the principle of non-contradiction, which says that a thing cannot be one thing and its opposite at the same time and in the same respect. Instead, it holds to the principle of abrogation, which is necessary since the Qu’ran has obviously contradictory passages. The resolution of this seeming conundrum is that the latest statement written by the prophet is controlling, since an all-powerful god can change his mind. [That this is an anthropomorphism that is itself in contradiction to a principled understanding of the nature of God as immutable is apparently not within the scope of Islamic thought.]

Then I leaned that in Islam the world is divided into two spaces. Where Islam prevails (which I think is synonymous with Sharia, but of this I am not certain) is called the “House of Islam”; anywhere else is called the “House of War.” Now I get it: Islam IS a religion of peace – for Muslims, but NOT for anyone else. It would be entirely consistent with a “house of war” to it be as miserable for the “infidel” as the “faithful” can manage.

Islam is a mental diseases passed on from generation to generation. It doesn’t stand up to any scrutiny from a logical mind. I find all this investigation of the Qu’ran and subsequent comments a complete waste of time. It’s akin to a rigorous, scientific analysis of “Alice in Wonderland.”

Yes, it is so unbelievable that it behooves people to know that there are those who follow this craziness (and force others to at least submit to it). Otherwise our rational minds lead us to believe that those who are bringing awareness to the craziness are imagining it all.

If Islam is a religion of peace and Isis isn’t Islamic, then why there are so many death fatwas issued by Islamic scholars? Why Saudi Arabia grand mufti asked for the destruction of Christian Churches in Arabian Peninsula? Why people is sentenced to death in Saudi Arabia for carrying a bible?

When was the last time a Christian priest, monk or whatever commanded to kill somebody?

If violence in Islam were confined to some terrorists I would believe Islam is peaceful, but there are so many islamic scholars, imans, mufties, ayatollas, preaching hate and violence, it is hard not to believe violence is an intrinsic part of Islam. There is no other religion, to my knowledge, were its clergy encourages violence like Islam

1. The Idea: Religions are good, Islam is a religion, therefore Islam is good.

2. The Idea: You must never criticize the doctrine of Islam because that would be offensive to Muslims and mark you as an islamophobe who is a bigot and opposed to freedom of religion. So it is OK to burn a Bible – but to burn the Koran, well that would be a major crime.

1. Is someone (like the Saudis) paying our hierarchy off to pretend that Islam is benign? Or do they engage in this charade because Catholic charitable groups receive federal money for resettling refugees? Our priests and bishops have failed us in so many ways, it is sickening. But now they are just telling outright lies. I just do not get what they are thinking in saying such demonstrably untrue things.

2. The idea that “Jesus was a prophet.” A Catholic priest does not think to point out (charitably) how nonsensical the idea is that Christ was a prophet? Christ said He was God. An ideology that holds that Christ should be venerated as a prophet should not be praised by a Catholic priest.

I love your blog and I love my faith. I don’t want you to lose your faith because of one priest’s misguided statements. I will never renounce the truth of Catholicism, and I appreciate the candor you bring to the discussion of Islam. In no way do I see a conflict in identifying and naming the dangers inherent in Islam and living a Catholic life. Thank you for the work you do!

Robert Spencer FaceBook Page

Robert Spencer Twitter

Robert Spencer YouTube Channel

Robert Spencer’s Free Speech Book

Jihad Watch® is a registered trademark of Robert Spencer in the United States and/or other countries - Site Developed and Managed by Free Speech Defense

Content copyright Jihad Watch, Jihad Watch claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise noted. Images on this blog are copyright to their respective owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and you do not wish for it appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to said image and it will be promptly removed.